Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas July 2002

Project Administrator Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command 2155 Eagle Drive North Charleston, South Carolina

Prime Consultant Hardy Heck Moore & Associates, Inc. 611 S. Congress Avenue, Suite 300 Austin, Texas

Department of the Navy Contract No. 62467-98-D-0094 Delivery Order 0001, Modification 3

I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas, Texas, (Figure 1.1) is a large aircraft and aerospace manufacturing complex in southwest Dallas. Vought Aircraft Industries operates the plant under a lease from the U.S. government. Because it remains under federal ownership, NWIRP Dallas is subject to Section 106 provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800). This regulation requires that any federally funded project take into consideration its impact on significant cultural resources, i.e., those that are listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Previous studies (see Table 1.1) have identified Facilities 1, 6, 7, 16, and 49, as being eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. In addition, Facilities 94 and 97 are recommended as being potentially eligible for the NRHP when they reach the 50-year age threshold normally required for NRHP designation. Both buildings will reach that milestone in 2004.

The Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) serves as a guide for the Department of the Navy and Vought Aircraft Industries to maintain the integrity of the NRHP-eligible buildings in compliance with both federal regulations and Department of Defense (DOD) policies. The ICRMP is prepared according to DOD Instruction 4715.3, which delineates policies affecting significant cultural resources under DOD stewardship. The ICRMP recommends the adoption of a management philosophy, as well as specific guidelines to help Vought Aircraft Industries personnel understand what makes the aforementioned properties important and what preservation practices should be implemented to ensure that the integrity of these buildings is maintained. The report includes specific preservation treatments that are geared to the unique physical characteristics of the plant’s significant cultural resources and identifies routine maintenance procedures that do not require coordination with the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The ICRMP strongly recommends that SHPO consultation and coordination take place when any project or undertaking is either being contemplated or is in the very early planning stages. Such actions can avoid costly delays.

By adopting and following the recommendations outlined in the ICRMP, NWIRP Dallas will comply with its federally mandated cultural resource management responsibilities as well as DOD Directive 4715.3.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 1-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

This project was undertaken for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Engineering Field Division South, under Contract Number N62467-98-D-0994, Delivery Order 0001, Modification 3. Hardy•Heck•Moore, Inc., of Austin, Texas, prepared and assembled the report.

PAGE 1-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Facility Current Name Date Property Subtype Architect NRHP Eligibility 1 Manufacturing Bldg. 1942 Manufacturing Plant Allen & Kelley Architects Eligible, NRHP Criterion A 2 Office Building 1942 Office/Administration Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 3 Maintenance Lean-to 1943 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 4 Maintenance Lean-to 1943 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 5 Maintenance Lean-to 1942 Office/Administration Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 6 Manufacturing Bldg. 1943 Manufacturing Plant J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Eligible, NRHP Criterion A 7 Office Building 1943 Office/Administration J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Eligible, NRHP Criterion A 10 Overpass Connection 1943 Operational Support Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 11 Cafeteria 1943 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 12 General Storage Shed 1943 Warehouse/Storage Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 15 Flight Tower 1943 Operational Support Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 16 Hangar 1943 Hangar J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Eligible, NRHP Criterion A 20 Bond Shop 1943 Manufacturing Plant Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 21 Manufacturing Bldg. 1943 Manufacturing Plant Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 22 Drop Hammer Bldg. 1941 Manufacturing Plant Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 23 Tooling Building 1941 Manufacturing Plant Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 24 Paint Storage Bldg. 1943 Warehouse/Storage Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 25 Warehouse 1943 Warehouse/Storage J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 26 Powerhouse 1941 Infrastructural Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 27 Maintenance Garage 1942 Operational Support Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 30 Paint Storage Bldg. 1942 Warehouse/Storage Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 31 Maintenance Bldg. 1943 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 32 Paint Touch-up 1942 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 37 TV Gate 1943 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 38 Turnstile Gate 24 1943 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 45 Cooling Tower 1941 Infastructural Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 46 Lumber Shed 1943 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 47 Storage Shed 1943 Warehouse/Storage J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 48 Storage Shed 1943 Warehouse/Storage J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 49 Engineering Building 1949 Laboratory/Engineering Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. Eligible, NRHP Criterion A 55 Sewage List Station 1943 Infastructural J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 56 Cylinder Storage 1941 Warehouse/Storage Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 59 Guardhouse 1942 Operational Support Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 63 Guardhouse, Gate 16 1942 Operational Support Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 64 Guardhouse, Gate 17 1943 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 68 Guardhouse 1942 Operational Support Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 70 Guardhouse, Gate 42 1942 Operational Support Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 71 Guardhouse 1943 Operational Support J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Not Eligible 76 Hangar 1949 Hangar Albert Kahn Associates, Inc. Not Eligible 81 Transformer Bank 1941 Infastructural Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 82 Transformer Bank 1942 Infastructural Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 84 Warehouse 1941 Warehouse/Storage Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 86 Switchboard House 1949 Infastructural Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible 93 Shipping Building 1953 Operational Support Corgan, Lane & Associates Not Eligible 94 Structures Test Lab 1954 Laboratory/Engineering Corgan, Lane & Associates Eligible, NRHP Criterion A 95 Test Cell 1954 Laboratory/Engineering R.C. Stokes Not Eligible 97 Engineer Flight Test 1954 Hangar Smith & Mills, A&E Eligible, NRHP Criterion A 98 Water Pumphouse 1954 Infastructural Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible 99 Water Storage Tank 1954 Infastructural Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible W1 Well No. 1 1941 Infastructural Allen & Kelley Architects Not Eligible 100 Water Storage Tank 1954 Infastructural Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible 101 Powerhouse Storage 1955 Infastructural Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible 102 Machine Tool Shop 1954 Operational Support Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible 103 Test Cell 1954 Laboratory/Engineering R.C. Stokes Not Eligible 104 Paint Hangar 1954 Manufacturing Plant Smith & Wardner, A&E Not Eligible 105 Paint Stripping Bldg. 1956 Manufacturing Plant Smith & Wardner, A&E Not Eligible 106 Engineer Assembly 1954 Manufacturing Plant Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible 107 Low Speed Tunnel 1955 Laboratory/Engineering Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible 109 Gasoline Pumphouse 1954 Operational Support Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible 110 Fuel Calibration 1955 Operational Support Landaur, Guerrero & Schafer Not Eligible 114 Engine Storage 1955 Operational Support Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible 115 Fire Station 1954 Operational Support Smith & Wardner, A&E Not Eligible 117 Water Pumphouse 1956 Infastructural Bureau of Yards & Docks Not Eligible Table 1-1. Executive Summary Table.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 1-3

Jefferson Avenue 312 304 105 222 321 320 104 2 292 94 49 7 176 343 319 10 ASRS 64 11 331

6 308 20 327 16 285 1 4 21 55 15 341 340 135 22 206 203 207 5 142 225 168 166 158 294 169 93 293 167 159 32 31 290 136 205 202 221 259 201 286 204 195 160 330 307 86 3 332 210 248 170 23 156 161 30 26 313 194 220 27 25 297 82 24 121 56 80 84 209 120 48 47 237 81 162 328 324 326 101 333 137 76 224 175 Bomber Road W1 144 163 263 45B 242 164 208 102 336 83 344 38 115 45A 197 306 317 165 196 238 68 45 140 110 265 46 239 273 275 276 228 99 117 272 274 277 33 244 335 98 229 100 334 128 279 278 337 287 231 282 280 211 212 213 198 283 270 329 284 250 226 281 95A 97

Crusader Drive 262 230 198A 129 311 106 109 95B 235

S. E. 14th Street 114 37 261 95 103 315 179 223 260

219 268 342 189 269 310 234 190 305 303 309 288 71 289 233 63 232A 192 232 70 59 191 193 130 119 258 316 266 118 107 131 267 182 132 183 134 153 108 214 298 264 241 Mountain Creek Lake 299 240 300 295

High Speed Wind Tunnel

296 Key

Building/Structure Skyline 301 NORTH

0' 500' 1000' NRHP-eligible Building/Structure

NWIRP Dallas, site plan showing all NRHP-eligible facilities

I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary...... 1-1

II. Table of Contents...... 2-1 List of Figures...... 2-2 List of Tables...... 2-3

III. Introduction...... 3-1 Reasons for Conducting the ICRMP...... 3-3

IV. Glossary...... 4-1

V. Mission Statement...... 5-1 Department of the Navy...... 5-1

VI. Literature Review...... 6-1

VII. Field and Research Methods...... 7-1 Field Investigations...... 7-1 Research Methods...... 7-2

VIII. Historic Context...... 8-1 Introduction...... 8-1 World War II...... 8-1 Industrial Mobilization: The Defense Period...... 8-3 The Creation of the Defense Plant Corporation...... 8-5 DPC Begins Operations...... 8-7 North American Aviation and Its Expansion Into Texas...... 8-11 The DPC Expands Into North Texas ...... 8-14 Construction and Operations Begin at Plancor #25...... 8-21 Industrial Mobilization: The War Period, December 1941 to August 1945...... 8-25 Expansion at Plancor #25...... 8-27 Full-Scale Operational Activities Begin at Plancor #25...... 8-32 Plancor #25 Operations are Reduced...... 8-37 Industrial Mobilization: The Transition Period, August 1945 to December 1947...... 8-39 Defense Plant Corporation Closes Shop...... 8-39 Plancor #25 Changes Ownership...... 8-43 The Cold War Period...... 8-45

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 2-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The Department of the Navy Assumes Command at Dallas...... 8-45 The Navy Locates a New Tenant for NIRAP Dallas..8-46 Vought Moves to Dallas...... 8-48 Expansion of NIRAP Dallas...... 8-50 Vought Begins Production at NIRAP Dallas...... 8-51 The Korean Conflict: 1950-56...... 8-55 Production for the Korean War Begins at NIRAP Dallas...... 8-56 Vought and the Navy Expand Plant “B” Facilities.....8-57 Expansion of TEMCO’s Plant “A” Facilities...... 8-62 Post-Korean War Production Continues at NIRAP Dallas...... 8-65 Conflict Develops at NWIRP Dallas as TEMCO Merges with Vought...... 8-70 LTV Tries to Purchase NWIRP Dallas...... 8-72 The Vietnam Period, 1965-1975...... 8-77 LTV Begins Production for Vietnam War...... 8-78 LTV Expands NWIRP Dallas to Meet Its Production Demand...... 8-80 LTV Operations in Post-Vietnam to 1992...... 8-87 Ownership of NWIRP Dallas Changes...... 8-89 Production at NWIRP Dallas from 1992 to the Present....8-90 Regulus Update...... 8-91 Brief Chronology of Events...... 8-91 Introduction...... 8-93 Early History of Missiles, 1939-1945...... 8-93 American Missile Development, 1945-1947...... 8-95 Chance Vought Aircraft Wins the Guided Missile Competition...... 8-97 Chance Vought Moves to Dallas, Texas...... 8-102 Vought Resumes Regulus Work at NIRAP Dallas....8-103 Vought Faces an Early Challenge During in the Regulus Program...... 8-104 Regulus History During the Cold War Period, 1950- 1989...... 8-105 NIRAP Dallas Expands to Meet New Production Demands...... 8-106 Fleet Testing and Use of the Regulus Missile...... 8-109 Naval Vessels and Deployments Associated with the Regulus Missile...... 8-111 Significance of the Regulus Missiles...... 8-117

PAGE 2-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

IX. Property Types...... 9-1 Office/ Administration...... 9-1 Hangar...... 9-2 Manufacturing...... 9-2 Warehouse/ Storage...... 9-3 Laboratory/ Engineering...... 9-4 Infrastructure/ Utilities...... 9-5 Operational Support...... 9-6

X. Federal Regulations and the Department of the Navy...... 10-1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)...... 10-1 Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA)...... 10-1 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA)...... 10-2 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978...... 10-2 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA)...... 10-3 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National Register of Historic Places...... 10-3 Section 106 of the NHPA...... 10-4 Section 110 of the NHPA...... 10-4 Types of Properties Eligible for the NRHP...... 10-5 NRHP Criteria...... 10-6 Integrity: The Foundation for NRHP Eligibility...... 10-7

XI. Section 106...... 11-1 Step One: Initiate the Section 106 Process...... 11-1 Step Two: Identify and Evaluate Historic Properties...... 11-2 Step Three: Assessing Effects...... 11-6 Step Four: Resolve Adverse Effects...... 11-13 Alternatives to Standard Section 106 Review...... 11-19 Important Contacts for Information & Compliance Assistance...... 11-21 Federal Level Points-of-Contact...... 11-21 State Level Points-of-Contact...... 11-22 NAGPRA Information & Contacts...... 11-22

XII. Individual Property Assessments...... 12-1 Facility 93: Shipping & Manufacturing Building...... 12-1 Facility 94: Structures Test Lab...... 12-4 Facility 95: Test Cell Building...... 12-8 Facility 97: Engineer Flight Test Hangar...... 12-11

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 2-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Facility 98: Water Pump House (Potable)...... 12-15 Facility 99: Water Storage Tank (Potable)...... 12-17 Facility 100: Water Storage Tank (Potable)...... 12-19 Facility 101: Powerhouse Storage Building...... 12-21 Facility 102: Machine Tool & Furniture Building...... 12-23 Facility 103: Jet Engine Test Building...... 12-25 Facility 104: Paint Hangar...... 12-28 Facility 105: Paint Stripping Building...... 12-31 Facility 106: Engine Assembly Building...... 12-34 Facility 107: Low-Speed Wind Tunnel...... 12-36 Facility 109: Gasoline Pump House...... 12-39 Facility 110: Fuel Calibration Shelter...... 12-41 Facility 114: Engine Storage Building...... 12-43 Facility 115: Fire Station...... 12-45 Facility 117: Fire Pump House...... 12-47

XIII. Management Plan/ Preservation Issues...... 13-1 Management of Significant Cultural Resources...... 13-1 Routine Maintenance...... 13-2 Undertakings Requiring SHPO Comment and Review.....13-4 Preservation Issues and Recommended Actions...... 13-5 Preservation Philosophy...... 13-5 Salient and Character-Defining Features of NWIRP Dallas...... 13-7 Character-Defining Features of Historically Significant Buildings...... 13-7 Character-Defining Features of Facility 1...... 13-9 Character-Defining Features of Facility 6...... 13-10 Character-Defining Features of Facility 7...... 13-13 Character-Defining Features of Facility 16...... 13-15 Character-Defining Features of Facility 49...... 13-17 Character-Defining Features of Facility 94...... 13-19 Character-Defining Features of Facility 97...... 13-21 Preservation Guidelines...... 13-24 Site...... 13-24 Exterior Materials...... 13-25 Roof...... 13-25 Doors and Entrances...... 13-26 Windows...... 13-27 Structural System...... 13-27 Interior Spaces...... 13-30 Recommended Sources for Additional Information...... 13-30

XIV. Bibliography...... 14-1

Appendix A: SHPO Letter

PAGE 2-4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 8-1. Real Estate summary map...... 8-15 Figure 8-2. Aerial photo of NAS Dallas and Hensley Field in relation to Plancor #25...... 8-17 Figure 8-3. Interior photograph of Facility 23, the Foundry, during World War II. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records...... 8-23 Figure 8-4. Interior photograph of Facility 22, the Drop Hammer Building. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records...... 8-23 Figure 8-5. Aerial photograph of Plant “A” facilities under construction, 8 July 1941. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records...... 8-23 Figure 8-6. Completed Plant “A” facilities, manufacturing and office buildings, circa 1941...... 8-24 Figure 8-7. Plant “B” expansion plot plan as prepared by J. Gordon Turnball, Inc...... 8-26 Figure 8-8. Artist’s rendition of the Plant “B” manufacturing expansion of Plancor #25...... 8-28 Figure 8-9. Plant “B” final assembly area for B-24 Bomber...... 8-31 Figure 8-10. B-24 wing production in Plant “B” during World War II. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records...... 8-31 Figure 8-11. Plant “A” final assembly area for the P-51 Mustang Fighter...... 8-32 Figure 8-12. Aerial view of Plancor #25 following construction, circa 1943...... 8-34 Figure 8-13. The SNJ in flight...... 8-34 Figure 8-14. SNJ-45 at NAS Dallas...... 8-35 Figure 8-15. A P-51 Mustang fighter on airport runway...... 8-35 Figure 8-16. P-51-D Mustang fighters on production line in Plant “A” during World War II...... 8-35 Figure 8-17. Production layout/floor plan for B-24 Liberator production in Plant “B” during World War II...... 8-37 Figure 8-18. B-24 Liberator Bomber...... 8-37 Figure 8-19. A notice printed in the Wall Street Journal, circa 1945, advertising surplus DPC property...... 8-42 Figure 8-20. Vought manufacturing facility in Stratford, Connecticut...... 8-46 Figure 8-21. Aerial photograph of Chance Vought facilities at NIRAP Dallas, circa 1947–48...... 8-48 Figure 8-22. The front gate and chain-link fence between Plant “A” and Plant “B,” circa 1947–48...... 8-48

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 2-5

I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Figure 13-5. Character-Defining Features of Facility 7...... 13-13 Figure 13-6. Character-Defining Features of Facility 7, continued...... 13-14 Figure 13-7. Character-Defining Features of Facility 16...... 13-15 Figure 13-8. Character-Defining Features of Facility 16, continued...... 13-16 Figure 13-9. Character-Defining Features of Facility 49...... 13-17 Figure 13-10. Character-Defining Features of Facility 49, continued...... 13-18 Figure 13-11. Character-Defining Features of Facility 94...... 13-19 Figure 13-12. Character-Defining Features of Facility 94, continued...... 13-20 Figure 13-13. Character-Defining Features of Facility 97...... 13-21 Figure 13-14. Character-Defining Features of Facility 97, continued...... 13-22 Figure 13-15. Character-Defining Features of Facility 97, continued...... 13-23 Figure 13-16. Facilities 49 and 16 (shown above) exist in an isolated setting, surrounded by paving. Locating new construction close to these facilities could diminish their integrity of setting...... 13-24 Figure 13-17. Concrete wainscot and box-ribbed steel siding are exterior materials used on historic facilities at NWIRP Dallas...... 13-25 Figure 13-18. Large expanses of flat roofs with raised, gambrel roofs over final assembly areas are characteristic of Facilities 1 and 6 at NWIRP Dallas...... 13-25 Figure 13-19. Concrete bomb baffles at entrances are an important character-defining feature of facilities 1, 6, and 7...... 13-26 Figure 13-20. The large aircraft doors on facilities 1, 6, 16, 94, and 97 incorporate “pilot doors” for personnel and vehicular access...... 13-26 Figure 13-21. Concrete columns and exposed steel roof trusses are important character-defining features of Facility 6...... 13-28 Figure 13-22. The open plan and exposed structure of Facility 97 — which are also characteristics of Facilities 1, 6, 16, and 94 — are important features that should be retained...... 13-29

PAGE 2-8 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1. Executive Summary Table...... 1-3 Table 8-1. Dollar Value of DPC Authorizations by Sponsoring Agency...... 8-6 Table 8-2. Twenty-five Leading Companies Operating DPC Facilities during World War II...... 8-10 Table 8-3. DPC Financing of Defense War Facilities by Product Type...... 8-11 Table 8-4. 1940-43 Plant “A” & Plant “B” Construction Types...... 8-19 Table 8-5. Contractors & Subcontractors for “Plant “A” Construction at Plancor #25...... 8-22 Table 8-6. Construction Costs for Plancor #25...... 8-29 Table 8-7. Contractors and Subcontractors for Plant “B” Construction at Plancor #25...... 8-30 Table 8-8. DPC Plants and Projects Distributed by States...... 8-40 Table 8-9. LTV Manufacturing Programs During Vietnam War Period...... 8-76 Table 8-10. Combined Summary of Improvements at NWIRP Dallas, 1947-1965...... 8-81 Table 8-11. Contractor-Funded Leasehold Improvements at NWIRP Dallas...... 8-85 Table 8-12. Short History of Guided Missile Development...... 8-98/8-99 Table 8-13. Regulus I Design Features...... 8-105 Table 8-14. Naval Vessels Associated with the Regulus Missile...... 8-111 Table 8-15. Submarines Associated with the Regulus Missile.....8-115 Table 13-1. Salient and Character-Defining Features of Significant Resources...... 13-8

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 2-9

I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of this report is the development of an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) to assist Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas personnel with the management of significant cultural resources at the aircraft manufacturing complex. Impetus for the project stems from the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as the country's official listing of historic properties worthy of preservation. One of the prime reasons that Congress passed the NHPA was the disregard that many federal agencies sometimes demonstrated toward historic and archeological properties that were impacted by their programs. For example, the construction of the interstate highway system and massive urban renewal efforts of the early and middle 1960s destroyed many historic properties that were significant to the communities in which they stood. The NHPA included provisions that required federal agencies to identify properties under their stewardship that may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and consider the impact of their actions on significant historic and archeological properties.

The National Park Service (NPS), within the U.S. Department of the Interior, is the federal agency that oversees implementation of the NRHP, a prestigious list that includes buildings, structures, objects, landscapes, and archeological sites that reflect our nation's rich heritage, and encourages the preservation of these properties for future generations of Americans. Properties in the NRHP may be noteworthy at a national, state, or local level, but must retain sufficient integrity to convey their significance.

DoD Directive 4715.3 sets forth general policies and standards to "ensure that natural and cultural resources entrusted to DoD care are sustained in a healthy condition for scientific research, education and other compatible uses by future generations." The directive calls for each DoD facility with NRHP-eligible cultural resources to prepare an ICRMP that not only complies with NHPA requirements but also establishes a consistent, agency-wide approach to cultural resource management responsibilities. Several years prior to the issuance of DoD Directive 4715.3, the Department of the Navy had issued a similar directive that called for the preparation of HARP plans for significant cultural resources. DoD Directive 4715.3 renders any previous HARP plans and similar formats adopted by other branches obsolete and calls for the adoption of ICRMPs at all installations with significant cultural resources.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 3-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Although the ICRMP report was prepared in compliance with DoD Directive 4715.3, it is not the first cultural resource study undertaken at NWIRP Dallas. Hardy·Heck·Moore (HHM), Inc. prepared a Historic Resources Survey, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas for Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command in November 1999. The report outlined federal legislation and the Navy's responsibility under Section 106 of the NHPA. HHM, Inc. identified three buildings at NWIRP Dallas as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In December 2000, HHM, Inc. prepared an update on its previous survey of NWIRP Dallas due to a contractor change at the plant. Northrop Grumman - lessee of the plant during the November 1999 survey - sold its Dallas, Texas division to Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., which currently leases the plant. The Historic Resources Survey, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas 2000 Update differs from the previous survey in that it addresses the most recent changes in operation of the plant. The 2000 Update also reaffirmed the NRHP eligibility for Facilities 1, 6, 7, 16, 49, 94, and 97, which are located on federally owned property. The Literature Review section of this ICRMP contains succinct explanations of all previously conducted surveys on NWIRP Dallas.

REASONS FOR CONDUCTING THE ICRMP To completely satisfy current NHPA requirements for protection of significant cultural resources at NWIRP Dallas, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command contracted with HHM, Inc. of Austin, Texas, to provide the activity with a current management plan for the plant's buildings and structures as well as any NRHP-eligible resources. The HHM, Inc. 2001 ICRMP provides the Navy and lessee Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. with a current and up-to-date preservation plan for NWIRP Dallas as well as management recommendations for its NRHP eligible properties. To date, seven buildings at NWIRP Dallas have been determined eligible for official listing in the NRHP - Facilities 1, 6, 7, 16, 49, 94 and 97. Since these properties are considered eligible for the NRHP they must be treated as if they are officially listed. Any proposed changes to the salient physical features of the buildings are subject to Section 106 coordination with the Texas SHPO. Changes to these resources, as well as new construction near the sites, could negatively impact the integrity and overall historic character of the resources. Therefore, SHPO coordination is federally mandated to ensure compliance with Section 106. All other extant facilities at NWIRP Dallas are not considered to be significant because they do not meet NRHP Criteria. Consequently,

PAGE 2NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN they do not warrant any SHPO coordination and/or special preservation considerations or treatments.

The HHM, Inc. 2002 ICRMP serves as an update of the 1999 Hardy·Heck·Moore & Myers, Inc.'s Historic Resources Survey, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Dallas County, Texas. Hardy·Heck·Moore & Myers’ initial survey evaluated all resources constructed through 1949. Federal Regulations require a historic building inventory and survey every six years. The HHM, Inc. 2002 ICRMP includes in-depth investigations on all of NWIRP Dallas's Cold War era resources, buildings, and structures, which have not been evaluated for NRHP eligibility.

David W. Moore, Jr., a principal of HHM, Inc., served as Project Director and supervised the project's completion. Thomas P. Eisenhour, Registered Architect, oversaw all aspects of the field investigations and survey, including the supervising the management plan, preservation issues, and completed the architectural evaluations. Architectural Historian Jennifer Ross developed the property types, physical descriptions, and inventory. Architectural Historian Karen Hughes completed the management plan section of the report as well as all preservation issues. Historian Laurie A. Gotcher prepared the Cold War historic context and undertook all background research. She obtained information from local libraries in the Dallas/Grand Prairie area, repositories in Austin, Texas, and the SeaBee Construction Museum in Port Hueneme, California; the National Archives Southwest Regional Branch in Fort Worth, Texas; the Textual Archives Division of the National Archives in College Park, Maryland; and, the Naval Historic Center at the Washington Naval Yard in Washington, DC. She also obtained site-specific information at the Facilities Engineering Department of NWIRP Dallas. This data was used to determine the relative significance of the individual properties within the context of the Cold War. Architectural Historian Richard E. Mitchell and Research Assistant Beth Bonnette served as project editors. Beth Bonnette also supervised all aspects of report layout and production.

HHM, Inc. would like to thank the following for their assistance in the preparation of this report:

• Ron Johnson, Historic Preservation Officer of Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command • Mr. Greg Smith, Texas Historic Preservation Office

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 3-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Ms. Carol Marsh, head archivist and historian at the SeaBee Construction Museum in Port Hueneme, California • Mr. Tom Peckenpaugh, Naval Historical Center at the Washington Naval Yard • Mr. Mike Schwarz, Communications Director at Vought Aircraft Industries • Ms. Lynne Warne, External Communications Team Leader at Vought Aircraft Industries • Mr. Charles Hampton, DCMA at NWIRP Dallas • Mr. William Estrada, DCMA at NWIRP Dallas • Mr. Truman Little, Facilities Engineering Department at Vought Aircraft Industries • Mr. Dan Wilson, Facilities Engineering Department at Vought Aircraft Industries • Mr. Pete Scholls, Archivist at NARA Southwest Region in Fort Worth, Texas • Mr. Barry Zerby, Archivist of Naval Property Records at the Textual Archives Division of the National Archives in College Park, Maryland • Mr. Tab Lewis, Archivist of Reconstruction Finance Corporation/Defense Plant Corporation (RFC/DPC) Records at the Textual Archives Division of the National Archives in College Park, Maryland • Mr. Mike Matthews of the Boeing Company - AM Southern California Site in Long Beach, California, for helping collect North American Aviation's World War II corporate newsletters We would like to extend a special thank you to members of Vought Aircraft Industries Retiree Club. Without these gentle- men, this report would not be half as good as it is: • Mr. Hank Merbler • Mr. Peter V. Farina • Mr. William Micchelli • Mr. Joe A. Milsap • Mr. Joe Engle • Mr. Dick Atkins

PAGE 4NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The ongoing and everchanging defense needs of the nation require a flexible approach to the use of the facilities at NWIRP Dallas and other activities under the Department of the Navy stewardship. This report outlines a management program that ensures that NWIRP Dallas not only accomplishes its primary mission as a aircraft and missile manufacturing plant, but also protects significant cultural properties under its stewardship, as mandated by Congress and the Department of Defense. While differing greatly in scope and execution, the two goals can be mutually compatible through careful planning, consultation, and coordination among the various state and federal agencies implementing these policies. Designed as a detailed guide to assist plant personnel in charge of cultural resources management, the HHM, Inc. 2001 ICRMP report provides detailed information concerning the implementation of appropriate preservation strategies. The report also suggests the avoidance of certain actions that may have an adverse effect on significant cultural resources, in compliance with federal regulations and DoD policies.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 3-5

I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

GLOSSARY

ACHP: acronym for Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Adverse Effect: an effect on an NRHP-listed or –eligible property that severely impacts the integrity of that property.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: an independent federal agency created by the NHPA. The Council advises the President and Congress on issues concerning historic preservation.

Contributing: a building, site, structure, or object within a Historic District, which adds to the values or qualities of that district because it was present during the Period of Significance and possess historic integrity, or is independently meets the NRHP Criteria.

Consultation: under Section 106 of the NHPA, the process of discussion among interested parties to identify historic properties, consider effects on them, consider alternatives to avoid or reduce adverse effects, and seek agreement on a course of action.

Curation: responsibility for the care of something held in trust for other people. Curatorial services means managing and preserving a collection according to professional museum and archival practices.

Effect: the result produced by any federally sponsored activity, or undertaking, that has the potential to change the physical or associative qualities of an NRHP-eligible property.

Historic Context: a body of information about historic properties organized by theme, place, and time. A historic context describes one or more important aspects of the development of an area, relating to history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture.

Historic District: a concentrated and cohesive grouping of historic resources that retain a significant amount of their historic character. Historic resources that add to the district’s overall sense of time and place are classified as Contributing elements. Severely altered historic properties and resources of more recent construction are classified as Noncontributing elements.

Historic Preservation: includes identification, evaluation, recordation, documentation, curation, acquisition, protection, management, rehabilitation, restoration, stabilization, maintenance, research, interpretation, conservation, and education and training

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 4-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

regarding the foregoing activities pr any combination of the foregoing activities.

Historic Resource: a building, structure, object or site that is at least 50 years old and that 1) is associated with events or person of significance; or, 2) embodies the characteristics of an important architectural style, method of construction or plant type; or, 3) may potentially yield cultural and archaeological information.

Historic Records: any historical, oral-historical, ethnographic, architectural, or other document that may provide a record of the past, whether associated with real property or not, as determined through professional evaluation of the information content and significance of the information. These may include documents that are official, unofficial, or private papers that record DoD’s operations, functions, equipment, and people.

Historic Resources Survey: a comprehensive inventory of an area’s extant historic resources.

Integrity: a condition or description of a property that is physically unaltered or one that retains enough of its historic character, appearance, or ambiance to be recognizable to the period when the property achieved significance.

Level of Significance: a property is determined to have significance at the national, state, or local level for the NRHP. For example, Mount Vernon has significance at the national level; the state capital is significant on the state level; and the house of a civic leader has local significance.

MOA: acronym for Memorandum of Agreement

Memorandum of Agreement: the document produced after the federal agency, SHPO, ACHP, and any other interested parties reach an agreement on the best way to proceed with an undertaking that has been determined to have an adverse effect on a historic resource. MOAs specify the alternatives agreed to by the consulting parties, identify responsible parties, address the comments of the ACHP, and serve as an acknowledgement that the agency has taken into account the Effects of its Undertaking on a historic property. Mitigation: a process to minimize adverse effects to a significant historic resource; usually involves supplemental documentation.

PAGE 4-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NHPA: acronym for National Historic Preservation Act

NPS: acronym for National Parks Service

NRHP: acronym for National Register of Historic Places

NRHP-Eligible: a property that is eligible for listing in the NRHP but is not officially listed in the NRHP; for Section 106 purposes, there is essentially no difference between official NRHP listing and being determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

NRHP Criteria: the guidelines used by the NPS to determine if a property is eligible for listing in the NRHP. Criterion A deals with properties whose significance is derived from associations with important historic trends or events; Criterion B deals with properties whose significance is derived from associations with important persons of the past; Criterion C deals with properties whose significance is derived from its architectural, engineering, and/or physical attributes; Criterion D deals with properties (usually archeological) that have the potential to yield important information about the past.

National Historic Preservation Act: the legislative act that calls for the preservation of cultural properties of local, state, and national significance. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish the NRHP as a list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture.

National Parks Service: the agency within the U.S. Department of the Interior responsible for administering all National Historic Sites and national parks.

National Register of Historic Places: the official list of the nation’s cultural resources worthy of preservation, as established by the NHPA. Listing in or eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP provides limited protection by requiring comment from the ACHP on the effect of federally assisted projects on these resources.

Noncontributing: a building, site, structure, or object within a historic district which does not add to the values or qualities of that district because it was not present during the Period of Significance, or it no longer possess historic integrity due to alterations, or is does not independently meet NRHP Criteria.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 4-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NWIRP: acronym for Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant

PA: acronym for Programmatic Agreement

Period of Significance: the period in which a Historic Resource attained its significance. If the property is important for its architectural merits, the period of significance is the date of construction. If the property is important for its association with an individual, the Period of Significance typically included the time span in which that individual was associated with the property.

Preservation: the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, or material of a building or structure.

Preservation Treatment: treating a historic property in such a way as to make possible a compatible contemporary use while preserving its significant elements. Several kinds of preservation treatments of historic buildings and structures are “preservation”, “rehabilitation”, “restoration”, and “reconstruction”.

Programmatic Agreement: an agreement, usually between a federal agency, the ACHP, and the SHPO, that is developed for a large or complex Undertaking that would otherwise require numerous individual requests for ACHP comments.

Property Type: a grouping of individual properties based on a set of shared physical or associative characteristics. Physical characteristics may relate to structural forms, architectural styles, building materials, or site type. Associative characteristics may relate to the nature of associated events or activities, to association with a specific individual or group, or to the category of information about which a property may yield information.

Records Management: the planning, controlling, directing, organizing, training, promoting, and other managerial activities involved with respect to records creation, records maintenance and use, and records disposition in order to achieve adequate and proper documentation of the policies and transactions of the Federal Government and effective and economical management of agency operations.

Rehabilitation: the act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or alteration that makes possible an efficient, contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the

PAGE 4-4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN property that are significant to its historical, architectural or cultural values.

Section 106: a provision within the NHPA that requires Federal agencies to consider the Effects of their actions on historic properties prior to the undertaking of actions.

Section 110: a preservation provision within the NHPA that requires Federal agencies to identify historic, architectural, engineering, and archeological properties under their stewardship and nominate them to the NRHP.

SHPO: acronym for the State Historic Preservation Officer

Stabilization: the act or process or re-establishing a weather-resistant enclosure and the structural stability of an unsafe or deteriorated property while maintaining the essential form as it exists at present.

State Historic Preservation Officer: the official appointed by the governor of each state and territory to administer the NRHP program. The SHPO duties include providing advice and assistance to federal agencies in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities. In Florida, the SHPO is the Florida Bureau of Historic Preservation.

Treatment: those measures applied to a property in order to make it suitable for use.

Undertaking: any action, activity program or project financed, assisted or licensed by a federal agency that may have an Effect on a property listed in, or eligible for, the NRHP.

U.S. Department of the Interior: the principal federal preservation agency. Administer national parks, national historic sites, and other public lands and major federal preservation programs.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 4-5

I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

MISSION STATEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY On 27 June 1996, the Department of the Navy issues a Cultural Resources Strategic Plan that states as its mission:

The Department of the Navy is a large-scale owner of historic buildings, districts, archeological sites, ships, artifacts, documents, and other cultural resources. Protection of these components of the nation’s heritage is an essential part of the defense mission and the Department of the Navy is committed to responsible cultural resources stewardship (SECNAVINST 4000.35).

In support of this mission, the Department of the Navy issued the following goals: • Enhance readiness by initiating timely compliance with Federal preservation laws; • Preserve America’s cultural heritage for the use, instruction, and quality of life of present and future generations; • Reduce infastructure costs and prolong the useful life of historic buildings whenever feasible; • Respect local historical interests and diverse cultural values in neighboring communities; • Inspire naval personnel with information and tangible reminders about America’s military past; and, • Provide guidance, training, and resource support for professional cultural resources management.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 5-1

I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

LITERATURE REVIEW

HARDY HECK MOORE & MYERS, INC. HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. NORTH CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: SOUTHERN DIVISION, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND, NOVEMBER 1999.

The Historic Resources Survey of Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas is a comprehensive historical and architectural inventory of all extant properties at the federally owned plant. Hardy Heck Moore & Myers evaluated 159 government-owned buildings and structures within the plant, focusing on those resources that were 50-years old. The contractor recorded all physical features of the resources as well as considered their relative historical and architectural significance according to federal guidelines established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Buildings and structures constructed between 1949 and 1991 were also considered for any exceptional significance associated with the Cold War Period. HardyHeckMoore & Myers determined that Facilities 1, 6, and 16 were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A for its historical significant, not their physical attributes. Facilities 1, 6, and 16 contributed significantly to manufacturing activities during World War II. The remaining extant resources were determined ineligible for the NRHP because of their lack of significance or integrity and/or they lack exceptional significance, as defined by federal regulations.

The December 2000 Update Historic Resources Survey of Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas contains the same comprehensive historical and architectural inventory that was originally printed in the November 1999 report. Following completion of the first survey, the lessee of NWIRP Dallas changed from Northrop Grumman to Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. HardyHeckMoore & Myers updated the historic context of the November 1999 report to reflect the change in lessee at the plant. The conclusions of the report did not change with the update survey

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 6-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

– the three extant properties at the federally owned plant determined eligible for the NRHP are still considered eligible.

PAGE 6-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FIELD AND RESEARCH METHODS

This study has been undertaken to determine if any of the 19 buildings and structures constructed from 1950-1959 at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional task undertaken as part of this survey is to provide the current lessee of NWIRP Dallas, Vought Aircraft Industries, with a management plan on how to deal and preserve its historic properties. The scope of work for HHM’s 2001 ICRMP stipulates that all extant resources constructed between 1950-1959 be examined and their relative significance considered relative to aircraft, missile, and space-related manufacturing activities during the Cold War period. All work was conducted in accordance with applicable federal regulations and guidelines, including National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Registration Form; National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance within the Past Fifty Years; and, National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys – A Basis for Preservation Planning.

FIELD INVESTIGATIONS The Historical Architect supervised all aspects of the field investigations. Prior to the start of fieldwork, the Historical Architect reviewed information contained in the November 1999 survey report of NWIRP Dallas by Hardy•Heck•Moore & Myers. The Historical Architect also reviewed information furnished by the Department of the Navy and in the form of P164 Real Property Records and Class II Property Records. Additionally, the Historical Architect viewed photographs of the resources taken in October 1998 as part of the initial historic and architectural survey of the plant. Using existing data, the Historical Architect familiarized himself with the 19 buildings and structures constructed between 1950-1956, including their location and salient physical features. Finally, the Historical Architect conducted a field survey of the 19 federally owned buildings and structures at NWIRP Dallas. The field documentation process included the following steps:

1. Complete Historic Resources Survey form for each building/structure, noting:

• Facility number; • Property type;

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 7-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Exterior materials • Number of stories • Site features, and • Photographic reference.

2. Photograph each resource, first digitally and then using both Kodak T-Max 100 and Kodachrome 100 film. This photodocumentation provides several oblique exterior views and primary elevations of each resource in both black- and-white and color-transparency film mediums. Significant interior features and/or spaces are also documented. Photos are linked to the inventory in this initial overview process. Additionally, the Historical Architect, using 16 mm large format black-and-white film, photographed those resources identified as Eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

3. Note significant physical attributes of each resource, such as site features, exterior materials, locations and types of doors and windows, and condition, as well as any obvious changes that had taken place to the building over time.

RESEARCH METHODS The Project Historian conducted some supplemental facilities-related research on the 19 buildings in May 2001, but often relied on previously collected primary and secondary research as part of the November 1999 survey report of NWIRP Dallas by Hardy•Heck•Moore & Myers. As part of the 1999 survey, the Project Historian viewed and copied records at:

• Naval Historical Center Library and Archives at the Washington Naval Yard, Washington, DC • Textual Archives Division of the National Archives in College Park, Maryland • Southwest Regional Branch of the National Archives in Ft. Worth, Texas • SeaBee Museum, Naval Construction Battalion Center in Port Hueneme, California • Dallas Public Library, Dallas, Texas • Inglewood Public Library, Inglewood, California • Perry-Castaneda Library at the University of Texas in Austin.

PAGE 7- 2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Facility records on file at NWIRP Dallas proved invaluable to the Project Historian during the 1999 survey and the 2001 ICRMP. When the Project Historian conducted research at the facility on 9-10 May 2001, she began by collecting and photocopying original architectural plans on file in Facility 2’s vault, located on the building’s second floor. The Project Historian copied original architectural plans, building elevations, sections, roof plans, and plot maps on Vought Aircraft Industries’ full-size Hewlett- Packard cartographic photocopier. On 10 May, the Project Historian continued with facility research by viewing Vought-maintained records on the 3rd floor of Facility 2. Inside several rows of metal file cabinets the Project Historian found records on each of the major buildings at NWIRP Dallas that included contracts, historic photographs, construction details, and modification to the buildings over time. The project historian photocopied the records and scanned the historic photographs for later use in building history section of the 2001 ICRMP report. She also took notes regarding architect, contractor, and date-of-construction for each of the 19 buildings under review.

Also on 10 May 2001, the Project Historian met with Vought Aircraft Industries’ Retirees Club, located in an unoccupied building at NWIRP Dallas. She interviewed former employees at the plant that worked exclusively on the Regulus missile program during the Cold War. Persons interviewed included Mr. Bill Michelli, the Regulus Program Director; Mr. Peter Farina, Director of Manufacturing and Production on the Regulus; Mr. Joe A. Milsap, Mechanical Engineer; and, Mr. Joe Engler, a Chance Vought Test Pilot. The Retirees offered incredibly valuable information on design methodology, manufacturing processes, as well as the testing and development history of the missile. The also played a video tape of Regulus II testing at Edwards Air Force Base detailing testing efforts and supplied the Project Historian with formally top secret photographs of manufacturing and shipping practices on the Regulus. Later in the day, Mr. Peter Farina gave the Project Historian a tour of NWIRP Dallas indi- cating which buildings were involved in the manufacture of the Regulus missile and the role each played in the overall production program. The Project Historian utilized the information she collected to develop individual histories of each of the 19 buildings, evaluate their overall importance in the Regulus program, and write NRHP assessments.

Following facility related research at NWIRP Dallas, the Project Historian conducted extensive secondary source research at the

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 7-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Engineering Library and the Perry-Castaneda Library at the University of Texas at Austin. Both repositories provided background information on the Regulus missile program and technical information regarding the United States’ development of missile-related technology from 1945-1990. The Project Historian also relied on the Internet to supplement research into missile development, especially for technology created around the same time as the Regulus. These three secondary sources permitted the Project Historian to compare the Regulus with other missile programs in order to evaluate its relative importance within the Department of Defense as well as at a local and international level.

PAGE 7- 4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

HISTORIC CONTEXT

INTRODUCTION NWIRP Dallas is an aerospace manufacturing complex constructed in 1941 as part of the U.S. World War II Industrial Mobilization Program. Known as Plancor #25, NWIRP Dallas initially consisted of 85 buildings and structures spread out over 153 acres in rural Dallas County, near the city limits of both Dallas and Grand Prairie, Texas. The original project owner, the DPC, was a governmental body assigned to fund and build a variety of industrial facilities across the United States that produced essential military goods for World War II. North American Aviation Inc. leased the government- owned plant from 1941 to August 1945, producing nearly 30,000 aircraft of three different types for the Army, Air Force, and Navy. NWIRP Dallas has been leased to six different tenants over the past six decades: North American Aviation, TEMCO, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, LTV, Northrop Grumman, and Vought Aircraft Industries. Today, the complex consists of 343 resources on 314.66 acres. NWIRP Dallas has a complicated but important history that details the role it played during the Second World War and its significance throughout the Cold War. Its history is not only the story of an aircraft plant but also of the growth of Dallas County and the aircraft industry in North Texas communities.

WORLD WAR II In the mid-1930s, there were definite signs that the peace established in Europe following World War I was tenuous. The first indication of trouble appeared in 1933 when Germany elected Adolf Hitler as its Chancellor and demanded equality with France and England, not disarmament. Germany withdrew from the League of Nations and secretly began to rebuild its military, a clear violation of the Treaty of Versailles. In an effort to renew its strength and demonstrate its power, Germany turned to every available technological advance in weaponry to ensure that it would never again be subjugated by Britain, France and the West. On 10 March 1935, Germany’s Defense Minister Herman Göring formally announced his country’s military rearmament program, which included all the latest technological developments in ships, tanks, guns, ammunition, and aircraft. Britain likewise began to rearm, and by the end of the year, all the major European powers and Japan had begun remilitarization programs.

It was not only Germany’s aggressive acts and rearmament that threatened peace in Europe; it was also the emergence of dictatorships in Italy, Spain, and Japan. All four countries appeared to

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

prefer force, propaganda, and fear to effect political change and gain power. Germany took full advantage of its early military preparedness by participating in the Spanish Civil War of 1936–39 and annexing both Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1938. The performance of the German military machine, especially the air force, or Luftwaffe, sent a clear message to Great Britain and France that they had underestimated Germany’s strength. The presence and large numbers of the German airforce in Spain and Czechoslovakia gave Europeans the perception that the Luftwaffe was much larger than anticipated.

Following the events of 1936–38, Great Britain, France, and other European allies began to rearm at a frantic pace. In order for European nations to achieve military supremacy over Germany, they would need help. France and Great Britain turned to the United States and its mass-production capability as early as 1935 in hopes of achieving military preparedness, but quickly found out that what they needed most—aircraft—was difficult to procure. America had been the leader in aviation since the late 1910s, but its industry had never mass produced aircraft. For decades, American aircraft companies fabricated each individual plane virtually by hand for a small and elite domestic and foreign market. The number of orders from European nations overwhelmed burgeoning aircraft and engine manufacturers. Fortunately for the aircraft industry and unfortunately for Europe, current American isolationist policy and neutrality laws required belligerent nations to pay cash for military goods, leaving the industry a brief period of time to prepare for the production demands of a large-scale, world war.

It was only in May 1939 when a loose— but public—diplomatic alliance developed between the dictatorships of Germany, Japan, and Italy that American leaders began to display and share France and England’s concerns for world peace and stability. The combined strength of the Axis coalition, the quick pace of overseas developments, and the defense needs of European allies provoked American leaders to develop a plan of action and turn away from its isolationist stance toward military preparedness. Any plan developed by the United States would have to balance and integrate foreign requirements and domestic needs without sacrificing or straining productive capabilities, resources, materials, facilities, and manpower.

In May 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt took the first steps toward mobilization when he ordered his Assistant Secretary of War

PAGE 8-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

and Assistant Secretary of the Navy to create a War Resources Board to manage the $11 billion defense budget and the newly formed Industrial Mobilization Program. Once planning had begun, the President declared a state of unlimited national emergency in an effort to prepare the American people for the demands of mobilization, which involved an unprecedented level of defense production. The Industrial Mobilization Program called for major changes within the country’s economic and governmental structure and altered the relationship between the private enterprise and the government, forcing them to coordinate activities in order to meet common goals (Kane 1995: 29; Vatter 1985: 10; U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: xiii).

The Industrial Mobilization Program’s main goals were the nation’s speedy transition from peace to war and back to peace. The program evolved through three major phases: The initial defense period, 1939–41, was characterized as the period when the United States was not actually at war but was compelled to rearm and help its allies, and itself, through weapons production and materials for defense. The second phase occurred from December 1941 until August 1945, and was characterized as the war period, when the entire American economy was directed toward winning the war through the procurement and production of ships, submarines, guns, ammunition, tanks, and aircraft. Finally, the third phase, from August 1945 to December 1947, was characterized as the transition period from World War II to the Cold War (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: xiii, 3).

INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION: THE DEFENSE PERIOD, 1939–41 The President and a new managing agency, the Office of Production Management, began implementation of the Industrial Mobilization Program in the summer of 1939, prior to Germany’s invasion of Poland. The first step of the program was the formation of the National Defense Advisory Committee, or NDAC. Legislation allowing for the formation of NDAC can be traced to the Army Appropriation Act of 20 August 1916, in which NDAC assumed the responsibility of coordinating industries and resources for the country’s national security and welfare (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 22). President Roosevelt invoked the law on 29 May 1940 in response to conflicts in Europe and the Far East. The key players of NDAC included the secretaries of War, Navy Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor, Office of Production Management, and seven at-large members. The President served as head and final arbitrator of NDAC, but he also relied closely on the

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

advice of its permanent and at-large members. The Army Appropriation Act allowed the President to nominate seven civilian members with “special knowledge of some industry, public utility, or the development of some natural resource, or otherwise specially qualified” (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 23). Roosevelt’s selections included industry officials, international dignitaries, economists, and financial experts to manage and run the entire program.

The President decided that only three members of NDAC needed to serve the Commission on a full-time basis: Danish-born William S. Knudsen, former president of General Motors Corporation (GM), advised on industrial production; Lithuanian-born Sidney Hillman, president of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, advised on employment; and Edward R. Stettinus, who was associated with the United States Steel Corporation, advised on industrial materials and was former chairman of the War Resources Board. Stettinus also had family connections with two of the biggest and most influential businesses in America—E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. and J.P. Morgan & Company (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 19, 20). The remaining members of NDAC—the commissioners on prices, farm products, transportation, and consumer interests—served only part-time positions.

Most of NDAC’s powers were de jure or de facto, and came either directly from the President or through the Office of Production Management. The most significant of NDAC’s powers was the ability of the group to approve or reject any defense-related contracts and procurement requests. On the subject of contract authorization, the President relied heavily on the advice of William S. Knudsen, who had been his ally, friend, and advisor throughout the Great Depression and had developed some of the most innovative and successful New Deal programs. Knudsen came to the President in the summer of 1940 and identified some of NDAC’s challenges. The Commission needed to procure supplies and materials on an enormous scale that was beyond the capacity of private industry, and the rationing of essential goods was not enough to offset the productive deficiencies of American industry. Knudsen asserted that industrial expansion was the nation’s “Problem Number 1” and additional facilities were required in order for America to meet the manufacturing demands of war (White November 1949: 159).

PAGE 8-4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

THE CREATION OF THE DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION The Industrial Mobilization Program’s budget was insufficient to cover the costs of building new factories and plants, so President Roosevelt turned to another trusted advisor, Jesse H. Jones, the head of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC), for input on how the nation might meet its production needs and goals in the event of war (White 1980: 16). The RFC had been responsible for the funding of much of President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs during the Great Depression and was the governmental body that located adequate funding for the federal construction requirements.

Jesse H. Jones, along with Hans Klagsbrunn and Clifford Durr of the RFC’s legal staff, drafted legislation in May 1940 that amounted to an amendment to the existing Reconstruction Finance Act. The amendment asked Congress to grant the RFC the authority to make loans and purchase stock in corporations for the purpose of national defense; to purchase strategic and critical materials; and to authorize the construction, expansion, and equipment of industrial plants (White 1980: 16). Congress approved the legislation, and on 25 June 1940, the President signed Klagsbrunn and Durr’s amendment, which explicitly authorized the RFC to lend money and form new companies to finance a $9 billion facility expansion program (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 77, 78; White 1980: 18).

The RFC first established a Site Location Board to work with the Office of Production Management’s Plant Site Board to recommend general criteria for the location of defense plants. Factors to be considered were availability of raw materials, transportation, supply and destination of the product, housing, power and utilities, abundance of labor, and sewage. A conscious effort was made to avoid highly congested, metropolitan areas with established industrial centers, and instead select rural, underdeveloped locations (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 162; Smith 1959: 450). Both boards agreed that the majority of all the sites selected should be located deep within the interior portions of the United States and away from either the east or west coasts, considering their existing high concentration of industry and vulnerability to attack. NDAC’s preferred zone was “between the Appalachians and the Rockies” (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 79). Dispersal of the new defense industries was a favored policy of the Industrial Mobilization Program because the War Department genuinely feared that the Axis Powers might sabotage or attack American industrial facilities; the more scattered the defense plants, the less likely they were to be damaged or destroyed by such aggressive acts. By 30 June

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-5 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Table 8-1. 1940, both the Site and Plant Location boards had acquired 2,116,862 acres of land on behalf of the War Department.

The second issue that the RFC dealt with during the summer of 1940 involved project financing. Klagsbrunn and Durr envisioned four potential sources of funding when they formulated the amendment to the Reconstruction Finance Act: 1) private financing with the aid of tax amortization, 2) government reimbursement of private capital outlays (EPF), 3) government ownership with the option of private purchasing, and 4) outright government ownership (Smith 1959: 440).

NDAC, and not the RFC, offered the first two options, which attempted to get private banks or companies to finance the expansion of individual industries on land provided and selected by the Plant and Site Location boards. If a bank or company paid for construction costs up-front, the government and the NDAC offered the corporate entity special tax incentives through amortization to offset construction, capital, equipment, and machinery costs. In this manner of financing, the company not only retained complete ownership of the facility, but it also recouped all costs after a few years of operation by taking advantage of available tax credits.

Despite such incentives, NDAC’s financing options were the least attractive to both banks and private enterprise. Tax incentives did not

PAGE 8-6 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN eliminate, reduce, ensure, guarantee, or affect a company’s loan payments. On the other hand, banks were extremely hesitant to loan billions of dollars without assurances from the government that the applicant would not default on its payments. The country had not yet fully recovered from the devastating effects of the Great Depression, and most companies were simply not stable enough nor were they in a financial position to provide sufficient capital to fund mobilization and related construction costs. By the end of July, NDAC failed to reach a deal with any American company for industrial expansion.

The most attractive type of financing was the third type offered in Durr and Klagsbrunn’s legislation in which the U.S. government would fund, construct, and then own a factory that would be leased and operated by a private contractor under a management-fee agreement (Jones & Angly 1951: 341). The RFC had independent borrowing authority and did not rely on Congress for its funds (White November 1949: 160). Private banking institutions preferred loaning the millions, and ultimately billions, of dollars, to the federal government rather than to private enterprises. The RFC presented this third type of contract and financing to several well-established companies, including the Packard Motor Company, Curtiss-Wright Aeroplane & Motor Company, General Motors, and Ford, in 1940. With only minimal modifications and negotiation, all parties agreed to RFC financing agreements and entered into contracts to build manufacturing plants.

This third type of financing ultimately proved the most successful method to execute the facilities construction program. Once a few initial deals were in place and ready for financing, the RFC and the President implemented Section 5d of the revised Reconstruction Finance Act and established the DPC to be responsible for brokering deals between the RFC, banks, and private enterprise for the construction and operation of new industrial facilities. On 22 August 1940, the RFC organized the DPC as the instrument by which the majority of World War II factories and plants would be financed, constructed, and operated, including NWIRP Dallas (White 1980: 18).

DPC BEGINS OPERATIONS The DPC was established purely as an interim program that derived all its authority, power, board, personnel, office spaces, supplies, and money from its parent organization, the RFC. Because the DPC was created to perform an emergency job, the DPC was given great flexibility to fulfill the erratic construction and procurement demands

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-7 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

of the Industrial Mobilization Program (White 1980: 50; White November 1949: 158). The DPC’s intent was to offer financing to promote each lessee’s maximum freedom during the construction, equipping and operation of its DPC-funded facility. So long as the lessee met its production requirements, the company paid only $1 a month in rent.

The actual financing process was not rigid. The Office of Production Management, War Department, Navy, Maritime Commission, and other governmental agencies came to the DPC with preferred location, type of facility needed, operator, and the type of product to be manufactured (Table 8-1). The nominating agency provided the DPC with several types of qualifying documentation: the first was a certificate of necessity that declared the facilities of “emergency” status and necessary to the national defense; the second was a certificate of government protection that guaranteed that the contractor would be reimbursed by the government for all or part of the cost, thus protecting the government from contractors seeking additional and unwarranted payments in addition to the decided-upon cost; the last requirement for DPC financing was a certificate of nonreimbursement that required the lessee to pay the cost of supply in excess of the decided-upon expenditures (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 27).

In the type of contract offered by the DPC, the contractor constructed or purchased facilities as an agent of the DPC, which arranged the financing with private lenders. Once the funds were available or dispersed to the company by the bank/lender, the DPC— essentially an agent of the government—repaid the bank and assumed the loan on behalf of the nominating industry. Next, the agency paid 40% to 50% of the total cost to the DPC at the beginning of construction and the remainder when the funds became available (Building the Navy’s Bases 1947: 385–86). The title of the plant or factory would be vested in the DPC as soon as repayment was made to the bank, and then later transferred to the nominating agency once it made full payment. In isolated instances, the lessee/contractor chose to purchase the plant on completion of construction. In those cases, the nominating agency was reimbursed for its initial investment and the DPC was paid the remainder of the loan (Building the Navy’s Bases 1947: 386).

By the end of 1940, DPC contracts totaled $250 million and were largely the result of word-of-mouth advertising within the business community. The types of industries selected for this program varied

PAGE 8-8 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN from manufacturers of ammunition and weaponry to tanks, clothing, food, ships, and aircraft. Private industry was overwhelmingly pleased with the speed and terms of the DPC-style contract and enthusiastically promoted Industrial Mobilization Program activities. Companies did not approach the DPC or the RFC for expansion and supply contracts because it was the nominating federal agency, not the DPC/RFC, that determined which companies received specific jobs. It was probably no coincidence that each of the companies selected for financing had representatives or contacts within NDAC, the Office of Production Management, or the RFC/DPC, and was generally considered by the nominating agencies as manufacturing the best possible products. The list of DPC-financed industries reads like a the Who’s-Who of American business: Chrysler, GM, Ford Motor, Studebaker, Wright Aeronautical and Curtiss-Wright Aircraft, Dow, Packard Motor, DuPont, and North American Aviation (Table 8-2). “Of the more than $11 billion in contracts awarded by the [Armed] Services during the months from June to December 1940, 60% went to 20 firms and 86.4% to only 100 companies” (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 63).

The single most heavily DPC-funded industry was aircraft, which included contracts for the construction of new facilities, equipment, and machinery for the manufacture and production of thousands of aircraft (Table 8-3). The aeronautical-facilities program contained a higher percentage of DPC contracts than any other program because it was among the most important and critical elements to mobilization and subsequent war effort. Moreover, the aircraft industry was least capable of meeting production goals, especially considering its position in September 1939, just months after the Industrial Mobilization Program began. The U.S. Air Corps, the forerunner to the Air Force, had only 2,400 combat aircraft of all types available for service, and most were obsolete. as compared with the German Luftwaffe, which U.S. intelligence knew to be 8,000-planes strong (Eltscher & Young 1998: 86). The successful Nazi drives across Europe stemmed, in large part, from Germany’s vastly superior aircraft. During this prewar period, the United States had only three manufacturers of high-powered aircraft and engines and only 13 significant plants, comprising 7,335,000 square feet of floor space and employing 45,000 workers (White 1980: 19; U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 80).

In May 1940, President Roosevelt gave his famous “50,000 Planes” speech, in which he announced $900 million in appropriations to transform the armed forces into a two-ocean Navy with 50,000 of the

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-9 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Table 8-2.

PAGE 8-10 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Table 8-3. newest and most advanced aircraft. T. P. Wright, Vice President of the Curtiss-Wright Aeroplane & Motor Company and NDAC aircraft advisor, informed the commission that it would take nearly five years to reach the President’s goal and would require a 400% expansion of the existing aircraft industry (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 40). Compounding the pressure to produce 50,000 planes, the President modified the order only days later for the manufacture of an additional 12,896 ‘follow-on’ aircraft to cover the need for heavy bombers (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 126). As of December 1940, NDAC finalized plans on an 82,890-plane program to be completed by June 1943. To achieve President Roosevelt and NDAC’s goals, manufacturers would have to mass-produce planes at an unprecedented scale.

NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION AND ITS EXPANSION INTO TEXAS When industrial mobilization and the aircraft manufacturing boom began in early 1940, North American Aviation was a relative

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-11 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

newcomer to the industry, having actively produced aircraft for only six years. Clement Keys founded North American Aviation in 1928 as an illegal holding company to hide his embezzling activities from the Curtiss-Wright Aircraft & Motor Company, where he served as president. In the fall of 1931, Curtiss-Wright executives uncovered Keys’ fiduciary improprieties and quietly removed him as president. At the same time, the board members of North American ousted Keys and replaced him with James H. “Dutch” Kindelberger, who moved the company from Dundalk, Maryland, to Inglewood, California. In 1933, North American began manufacturing small- engined aircraft and slowly built a solid name for itself. North American’s steadily increased its business by offering customers a more diversified product line of small, medium, and large aircraft. This diversification attracted both foreign and domestic orders, and the company quickly became one of the top five aircraft manufacturing companies in the nation.

By the late 1930s, North American was inundated with more orders than its Inglewood factories could meet, and the company needed to expand its facilities. Fortunately, North American was in a good financial position and able to fund the construction of new factory spaces. North American President Dutch Kindelberger heard about a pending agreement between Consolidated Aircraft and the City of Dallas, Texas, for the construction of an aircraft manufacturing plant on land adjacent to the Hensley Army Reserve Airfield. In early 1940, a failed merger between Consolidated and Hall Aluminum caused the company to renege on its deal with the City of Dallas. Kindelberger consulted Consolidated and received permission to assume Consolidated’s contractual obligations and options to the City of Dallas for the land. North American promised to build a factory in the area if the War Department consented to the company’s use of Hensley Field for the qualification of its aircraft. North American also requested that the City of Dallas extend two runways as a condition of the sale (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94; Barksdale 1958: 3).

North American’s requests to both the City and the War Department were granted, and by August 1940, contracts were signed. On 23 August 1940 The Grand Prairie Texan, a local newspaper, announced North American’s intention to build an aircraft plant in Dallas County. The affordable land prices, moderate climate, diminutive tax burden, abundance of electric power, and availability of labor and transportation influenced the company’s decision to expand into Texas. In addition, the proposed plant site was accessible to two highways and the Texas and Pacific Railroad, a transcontinental

PAGE 8-12 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN system that extended to the company’s West Coast base of operations (Grand Prairie Texan 23 August 1940: 1).

On 28 August 1940, North American officially acquired the city- owned land, approximately 10 miles from downtown Dallas, two miles from Grand Prairie, east of Hensley Field, and north of Mountain Creek Lake. The small plot of land was insufficient for all of North American’s construction needs, so the company hired local realtor Paul Carrington to acquire additional lands (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 2). Carrington purchased 48 parcels of land in two different surveys, the J. W. Kirk and E. Crockett Survey that were adjacent to the Hensley Field site. From August to November 1940, North American finalized the deals aggregating 152.5 acres and purchased from landowners Donnie S. Higgins, A. B. Mason, J. B. Critz, Jon A. Worsham, Dallas Power & Light Company, and the estate of Mrs. Donna Roberts Fitzgerald Crane (Figure 8-1).

The company hired Allen & Kelley Architects of Indianapolis, Indiana, to design its factory spaces for the new Dallas plant. Not much is known about this firm except that they apparently designed other aircraft and industrial plants following World War II 1. The January 1948 issue of Progressive Architecture profiled Allen & Kelley Architects’ plans on a General Motors factory in Grand Rapids, Michigan because of its integration of design with equipment. Other than the Progressive Architecture feature article, little is known about Allen & Kelley Architects except that the firm designed for North American Aviation in Texas from 1940–42.

Ernest R. Breech, the chairman of the board for North American Aviation Inc., turned the first shovel of earth at the groundbreaking ceremony on 28 September 1940. The dedicatory ceremony was held in a barren pasture northwest of Mountain Creek Lake, and many local leaders in politics, aviation, and business attended the event, including Dallas Mayor Woodall Rodgers, Dallas banker J. B. Adoue, Jr., and the President of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce (Barksdale 1958: 4). Breech announced to the crowd that North American intended to transfer only a few workers from its Inglewood, California, operations and hire the majority of its work force from the North Texas area (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94).

At the time of the ground-breaking ceremony, the manufacturing sector was a relatively small component of the local Dallas economy. Only 16,000 of Dallas County’s 398,564 residents made their living from manufacturing jobs, which earned them $15 million annually

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-13 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

(The Handbook of Texas,Vol. I. 1952: 459). The majority of work available in Dallas County before World War II was in agriculture, livestock, textiles, women’s accoutrements, and oil and petroleum (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94). North American’s annual payroll of $10 million promised to almost double the number of manufacturing jobs in Dallas County and provide an alternative source of employment in an area that had little experience with the military aircraft industry. The new North American plant was expected to affect the small, rural town of Grand Prairie beyond merely increasing its employment base. The town anticipated its population of 2,000 to double and thereby strain available housing. Local real estate experts predicted a need for 1,000 additional homes. The City of Grand Prairie doubled its police, fire, schools, water, and sewage and power even before construction officially began (Price 7 July 1940: np).

THE DPC EXPANDS INTO NORTH TEXAS North American and Consolidated were not the only aircraft companies interested in Texas during this period; the DPC Site Location Board targeted Texas as one of the top states for industrial mobilization. Texas ultimately ranked fourth among DPC-financed states in the country. The U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) nominated North American and its products for DPC funding in early 1940, and the Dallas County factory expansion appealed to the USAAF and the DPC for many reasons, most important of which was the plant’s proximity to a proposed USAAF base east of Hensley Field.

Construction on the USAAF base in Dallas began in October 1940. It was soon placed under Navy stewardship and renamed NAS Dallas because the USAAF already had a base in Fort Worth—Carswell Army Air Force Base. NAS Dallas was one of 80 air stations constructed under the authority of the Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks during World War II. The Bureau’s assignment in this period was to build a system of interconnected air bases capable of supporting 27,500 airplanes and 200 seaplanes. The Navy assigned the new NASs a variety of duties and responsibilities, but their primary mission was to keep aircraft operational and combat ready. All maintenance, from major to minor work, was performed at these bases (Building the Navy’s Bases 1947: 227). Other missions included qualifying and training new recruits and testing aircraft manufactured for use in the war.

When NAS Dallas was commissioned, it had two primary missions: the first was the training of naval aviation cadets and enlisted personnel from the Marine Corps and Coast Guard on the newest and

PAGE 8-14 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Figure 8-1. Real Estate summary map. Source: Defense Plant Corporation.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-15 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

most up-to-date aircraft. This function supported NAS Corpus Christi, the second largest aviation-training base in the nation. NAS Dallas’s second principal mission was to provide mechanical support and repair and maintenance of both new and used aircraft engines manufactured at various plants around the nation. In support of this effort, enlisted personnel at NAS Dallas tested and qualified light aircraft manufactured by DPC Plancors in and around Texas (NAS Dallas Historical Record nd: 1).

The DPC found that aircraft manufacturing plants and military bases could work in cooperation with one another to make the Industrial Mobilization Program work more efficiently. As a result, the placement of Plancors close to military bases became a general trend within the program. Examples occurred in St, Louis, Missouri; San Diego, California; Columbus, Ohio; Seattle, Washington; Wichita, Kansas; Buffalo, New York; Memphis, Tennessee; Stratford, Connecticut; Fort Worth, Texas, and at many other locations (Figure 8-2).

Normally, the DPC did not contract with a company after construction and planning activities had begun, as it did with the North American plant in Dallas County. Standard operating procedures for financing called for a sponsoring agency to nominate a prospective company and the DPC approached the company with a deal. The DPC agreement with Curtiss-Wright Aircraft Corporation for a plant in Hamilton County Ohio, just outside of Columbus and Cincinnati, illustrates the program’s usual process. In June 1940, the DPC approached Curtiss-Wright officials with a $37 million construction deal for the company to manufacture aircraft motors on 200 acres in rural Ohio (White 1980: 20–22). The offer also included $20 million in additional funds for working capital, equipment, and machines. Initially, Curtiss-Wright did not agree to the terms, but after routine negotiations, the company consented and the plan was formalized on 7 August 1940 (White 1980: 20–22).

The Curtiss-Wright Ohio deal represented the majority of arrangements made by the DPC with industrial corporations, but, considering the need for rapid industrial mobilization, the DPC was willing to change its normal methods and processes for financing, planning, and construction to meet production and procurement goals. Factors that interested the DPC in the North American/Dallas County agreement centered on the plant’s proximity to NAS Dallas, NAS Corpus Christi, and the company’s sponsorship by the War Department.

PAGE 8-16 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The DPC suspended its normal procedures because the War Department wanted the Dallas County/NAA factory expansion included in the Plancor construction program and part of the Industrial Mobilization Program. The DPC sent Supervising Engineer, Frank Shaw, to North American Aviation’s corporate headquarters in Inglewood to discuss the DPC’s taking over the construction, operation, and ownership of the factory space. On 4 November 1940, Shaw offered North American the basic DPC financing package in which the DPC would reimburse the company for its total investment, take over any outstanding loans, continue construction of the Dallas County plant as DPC-owned Plancor #25, and lease it to North American for $1 a month. North American and the DPC negotiated for two days and, on 6 November 1940, they signed a contract and lease for the construction of a plant, support structures, and the acquisition of equipment and machinery worth

Figure 8-2. Aerial photo of NAS Dallas and Hensley Field in relation to Plancor #25. Source: United States Naval Air Stations of World War II: Volume 2, Western States by M. L Shettle, Jr.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-17 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

$7.9 million dollars (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94; Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 2, 3).

Even though North American signed away ownership of Plancor #25, the company retained considerable rights regarding the construction of the plant as lessee. First, the company worked with the DPC, the architects, and engineers on the design and plant layout. North American insisted that the floor plan be simple but innovative to maximize speed of production. Second, North American wanted the DPC to honor its existing contracts with Allen & Kelley Architects and James Stewart & Company, to design, supervise construction, and provide engineering services. The DPC agreed to this request with the stipulation that the architects and engineers comply with Industrial Mobilization rationing rules and War Department design criteria.

In 1940, the War Resources Board began a rationing program for items critical to the national defense and the Industrial Mobilization Program. War Resources Board restrictions on steel greatly affected the Industrial Mobilization Program’s national building program and required architects to use alternative materials, such as concrete and wood, in the construction of noncritical buildings (Kane 1995: 85–6). Owing to rationing, the DPC replaced the Mosher Steel Company of Dallas as the steel contractor for Plancor #25 in an effort to directly control the amount of steel used during the construction of the plant (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 3).

The DPC created a set of construction designations according to the War Resources Board restrictions that guided architects and engineers in the design and construction of DPC-financed factories. Assigned building designations indicated a facility’s overall level of importance within the operations of the complex and the Industrial Mobilization Program. Type “A” buildings were considered critical to the manufacture of war-related products and thus were fireproof and constructed with steel and concrete. Types “B,” “C,” and “D” buildings were made of concrete and wood, and Type “E” designations indicated construction materials of concrete and brick (Table 8-4). Each major and minor building at Plancor #25 was assigned a DPC-construction designation (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 10).

On 16 September 1940, the Assistant Secretary of War, Robert P. Patterson, forwarded a naval operations memo to the executives at North American Aviation requesting that they comply with certain

PAGE 8-18 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Table 8-4.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-19 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

design criteria for aircraft manufacturing plants. Following the company’s contract with the DPC, the request turned into a requirement. Allen & Kelley Architects were forced to adhere to DPC specifications and design Plancor #25 as a “blackout” style plant. This type of design provided a measure of protection against enemy air attack or sabotage. The War Department developed a set of blackout criteria for architects and engineers. The first blackout standard addressed general plant location and the preference for inland rather than coastal states, and rural over urban areas. Second, the War Department favored dispersal of buildings instead of a closely packed factory space. They recommended a distance between buildings of 100 yards. The War Department justified this second criterion by postulating that if a bomb were dropped, the destruction of one or two facilities would not disrupt the production of the entire plant (R.E. Ingersoll to Chief of Naval Operations 16 September 1940: 1). The third blackout provision included installation of opaque shutters or mechanical curtains in all windows, skylights, doors, and other places where interior light might escape. Fluorescent, incandescent, and mercury vapor lights were installed and pointed downward in an effort to help reduce the amount of interior light emanating from the buildings. This provision also included completely sealing all entryways (R.E. Ingersoll to Chief of Naval Operations 16 September 1940: 1–2). As an additional measure against destruction under bomb attack, the War Department’s fourth blackout criterion included the design and installation of fire and bomb walls. The final provision of a blackout building incorporated camouflage techniques to prevent a possible bomber or saboteur from discovering the plant. Concealment included landscaping, painting the buildings to match the terrain, and disguising the roofs of factories by painting designs such as farms, golf courses, or residential neighborhoods (R. E. Ingersoll to Chief of Naval Operations 16 September 1940: 2, 4). At Plancor #25, the roofs were disguised as a golf course (Hanley 1986: 46).

Once Allen & Kelley Architects considered the requirements of both the owner and the lessee, they designed for the first blackout-style, DPC-financed, windowless, fully air-conditioned, and artificially- lighted factory space in the United States (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 95; Barksdale 1958: 5). Known as Facility 1, the factory featured an open and simplistic arrangement that emphasized speed of production. Its spacious internal layout facilitated the quick movement of basic materials from storage to production to shipping and receiving departments (Barksdale 1958: 5). The main manufacturing area consisted of 900,000 square feet and was

PAGE 8-20 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN designed to accommodate the production of 325 AT-6 “Texan” trainers and 250 P-51 “Mustang” combat fighters per month (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 65).

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS BEGIN AT PLANCOR #25 The DPC and North American hired several prime contractors and subcontractors from different parts of the nation to provide a variety of services in the construction of Plancor #25 (Table 8-5). J. Gordon Turnball, Inc., of Cleveland, Ohio, was an important addition to this plant’s construction team as consulting engineer. At the time, the consulting company provided numerous architectural and engineering services to the DPC building program for Curtiss-Wright factories in St. Louis and Buffalo. In addition to these plants, J. Gordon Turnball designed and constructed facilities for General Motors and several other engine manufacturing facilities, including the Guiberson Diesel Engine Company of Texas and Continental Motors Corporation (Plancor #1504), both in nearby Garland, that supplied North American with aircraft engines during World War II (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 66). James Stewart & Company served as prime contractor to the plant’s construction and signed a contract for $1,705,000. James Stewart & Company supervised the general construction of the entire plant, with J. Gordon Turnball working as a subcontractor (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 2).

Beginning 13 November 1940, James Stewart & Company stripped, graded, and cleared the former cotton and pasture lands into the site for Plancor #25. The Texas & Pacific Railroad began construction on a team track and spur along the south side wall of Facility 1 and placed an additional, but temporary, spur on the building’s east side (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 2). Only a few days later, rain began to fall intermittently, but they continued over a 100-day period, culminating in 14 inches of rainfall (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 3). The president of North American, Dutch Kindelberger, recalled the conditions: “On 2 December 1940, when the first steel was erected, it was a morass of black mud. It rained so frequently that the construction crews almost had to take soundings to see just where their trucks had disappeared” (Barksdale 1958: 6). Despite the rough weather, James Stewart & Company completed significant construction activities at the site. Plumbing, electrical lines, heating, ventilation, and fire protection systems were installed by a variety of subcontractors in November and December 1940. By 29 January 1941, James Stewart & Company had finished the steel framework and trusses for the Facility 1 manufacturing building and its seven ancillary Type “A” facilities (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 3).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-21 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Table 8-5.

PAGE 8-22 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

In only three months, enough construction was completed at Plancor #25 that North American was able to unload and store machine tools and also install pieces of permanent equipment in Facility 1 and Figure 8-3. Interior photograph of Facility 23, the other production spaces, Foundry, during World War II. Source: NWIRP such as Facility 22, the Dallas Plant Records. Drop Hammer Building, and Facility 23, the Foundry (Figures 8-3 & 8-4). During the period from January to March 1941, numerous contractors and subcontractors worked quickly to construct the Facility 1 manufacturing factory and its 12 support structures. On 8 March 1941, before James Stewart & Company completed construction, North American began manufacturing activities on the AT-6 Texan training aircraft in Facility 1 (Figure 8-5). It was vital to the DPC Figure 8-4. Interior photograph of Facility 22, the Drop that production operations at Plancor Hammer Building. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records. #25—especially on the Texan—begin as soon as possible so that aviators across the country, particularly at NAS Dallas and NAS Corpus Christi, could prepare and train on the type of aircraft most likely to be flown by the USAAF and the Navy. The first full- production Texan rolled off Facility 1’s manufacturing line on 29 March 1941. North American pronounced the Texan ready for flight testing and Figure 8-5. Aerial photograph of Plant “A” facilities under towed it to Facility construction, 8 July 1941. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records. 20, the Hangar. The

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-23 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Figure 8-6. Completed Plant “A” facilities, manufacturing and office buildings, circa 1941. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records.

following day, North American towed it to Hensley Field, where it took its maiden flight (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4).

James Stewart & Company completed construction on the Facility 1 manufacturing building in April 1941 (Figure 8-6). Some of Facility 1’s ancillary buildings included an office building (Facility 2), a power generating plant (Facility 26), a million-gallon water reservoir (Facility 35), a sewage treatment plant (Facility 34), air-conditioning cooling towers, paint storage facilities (Facility 24), the Foundry (Facility 23), and the Drop Hammer Building (Facility 22), and a hangar and aircraft storage (Facility 20) (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 95). North American and the DPC celebrated the beginning of production at Plancor #25 by hosting a dedicatory ceremony for 400 distinguished guests of North American, NAS Dallas, the DPC, Industrial Mobilization Program’s Advisory Committee, and local Dallas County leaders on 7 April 1941. Attendees included Assistant Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson, William S. Knudsen, J. Buell Snyder, Colonel I. H. Edwards, Ernest R. Breech, and DPC Chief of Council Hans Klagsbrunn (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4). In a luncheon speech given on Facility 1’s assembly line, Robert P. Patterson reflected: “The super-human job you Texans have accomplished in erecting this great monument to defense is an example for the entire nation. There is new reason to believe that the American aircraft industry can do the unbelievable job expected of it” (Hanley 1986: 46).

The onset of production at Plancor #25 resulted in economic and industrial growth in Dallas County, as well as a population boom in nearby Grand Prairie. The DPC sought to ease housing shortages by providing lodging for the thousands of workers who poured into the area. The DPC and the Federal Works Administration funded the construction of a defense-housing colony known as “Avion Village,” located southwest and within walking distance of Plancor #25. Avion Village consisted of 300 hastily constructed prefabricated homes on

PAGE 8-24 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN concrete slab foundations. According to a contemporary source: “One crew completely erected and furnished a cottage on a waiting foundation in 58 minutes and 50 seconds–and defeated its competitor by only two minutes. More adequate than many defense housing projects, Avion Village included a community center, swimming pool, parks and playgrounds, and a public school” (Barksdale 1958: 5).

INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION: THE WAR PERIOD, DECEMBER 1941— AUGUST 1945 As officials celebrated the completion of Plancor #25 in Dallas, events in the Pacific heightened. When Japan overran French- controlled Indo-China in May 1941, the Industrial Mobilization’s aircraft procurement program increased and diversified into the development and production of the long-range, four-engine bomber, a weapon specifically designed to exert pressure in Asia. During this period, American aircraft industry developed three types of bombers: the heavy Consolidated B-24 Liberator, the medium Martin B-26 Marauder, and the heavy North American B-25 Mitchell (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 48).

American aircraft companies already had orders to sustain themselves through 1942, and this increased demand for bombers overwhelmed the industry’s capabilities and its newly constructed facilities. Knudsen urged automotive companies to undertake the challenge of the new bomber production program in government- owned plants and in collaboration with the company that designed the aircraft (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 49). Because North American was a subsidiary of the GM and the designer of the B-25 Mitchell, the DPC turned to GM to produce the bomber at a newly completed factory in Kansas City. The Ford Motor Company owned Consolidated Aircraft and agreed to undertake B-24 Liberator production in two DPC-owned Plancor facilities: Tulsa, Oklahoma and Fort Worth, Texas.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 forced the Industrial Mobilization Program to acknowledge that the production effort offered by the automotive industry was insufficient to meet the demand and urgency for bomber aircraft. The prospect of a full-scale, two-front war made existing procurement, production, and industrial facilities dangerously deficient, and goals were sharply increased. The War Department demanded that the aircraft industry undergo additional facilities expansion to accommodate heavy bomber production and sent nominations to the DPC for the original aircraft

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-25 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

designers to expand their factories. Because Consolidated was engaged in B-24 Liberator production in Fort Worth, the DPC believed that North American in nearby Dallas could cooperate on the Liberator production program. North American and the DPC were willing to expand further into Dallas County “because the people of Dallas and Texas have shown a wonderful spirit of cooperation, a genuine desire to do everything necessary to win the war, and a great aptitude for aircraft manufacture” (Dallas Morning

Figure 8-7. Plant “B” expansion plot plan as prepared by J. Gordon Turnball, Inc. Source: Defense Plant Corporation.

News 20 December 1942: np). The DPC assigned North American’s Plancor #25 an expanded production and facility order for 100 B-24 heavy bombers per month in a new manufacturing building called Facility 6 (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4, 65) (Figure 8-7). It was not uncommon for a DPC-sponsored Plancor to be built in two planned construction phases. Curtiss-Wright’s Plancor #17 in St. Louis was built from 1940–42 whereas its ancillary building, Plancor #17A was constructed in 1943. However, it is not clear whether a two-phase construction plan was intended for Plancor #25

PAGE 8-26 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN or whether the second phase was merely a response to wartime demands. It is unlikely that Plancor #25 was intended as a two-phase plant for several reasons. First, the DPC accommodated North American’s previous commitments when it assumed stewardship of the Dallas County plant deal, which included existing architectural designs for the planned buildings. Second, the need for bomber aircraft presented itself only when construction at Dallas was nearly complete. The President’s 50,000 plane goal primarily involved building trainer and fighter aircraft to combat Germany and Japan’s known capabilities, which did not include heavy bombers. Finally, Plancor #25 had excess land available for additional construction. It is possible that the War Department incorporated North American in its expanded bomber production program because Plancor #25 had room for additional facilities and was capable of accommodating the manufacturing demands. Nevertheless, it is impossible to confirm whether the 1943 expansion of Plancor #25 was planned prior to the emergency shortages of heavy bombers in 1941.

EXPANSION AT PLANCOR #25 On 28 February 1943, North American and the DPC amended their lease to provide nearly $34 million in additional funds for the acquisition of surrounding land and the construction of a second, much larger manufacturing building, called Plant “B,” or Facility 6, along with its support structures (Figure 8-8). The funds also targeted the purchase and installation of machinery and equipment for production of the B-24 Liberator Bomber, as well as additions to existing Plancor #25 facilities, now called Plant “A” buildings (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4). The Plant “B” expansion contract between the DPC and North American was different from the first arrangement because the company had a limited say in the expansion. The DPC assumed complete control for the selection of the architect, engineer, contractor, and subcontractor (Table 8-6).

Consistent in Plancor construction nationwide, the DPC preferred to engage architectural-engineering firms to design and supervise their plants rather than hire separate architects and engineers. In the 1942–44 Plant “B” expansion, the DPC selected J. Gordon Turnball as the architectural engineer instead of Allen & Kelley Architects, who had designed Plant “A.” The architectural engineer’s contractual obligations included surveying the property, drawing the maps, making layouts, preparing estimates, adapting standard plans to the sites, designing unique structures, and supervising the overall construction of the Plancor (Fine & Remington 1972: 193).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-27 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Figure 8-8. Artist’s rendition of the Plant “B” manufacturing expansion of Plancor #25. Source: Defense Plant Corporation.

The DPC again hired a variety of companies for construction services, some of whom worked on Plant “A” (Table 8-7). The DPC hired James Stewart & Company to construct and equip Facility 6 and its support buildings (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4–5). Interestingly, DPC hired the Mosher Steel Company of Dallas, which had been fired during the “Plant A” construction because of steel restrictions. The DPC no longer had to provide its own steel as it did in 1941, because the Office of Production Management and the Industrial Mobilization Program took control of steel rationing. Because steel was still in short supply in March 1942, the DPC required the crew for “Plant B” to adhere to its construction designations “A”–“F.” The Industrial Mobilization Program, NDAC, Office of Production Management, and DPC worked diligently with private industry to establish compliance standards so that they could provide the supply work to construction programs (U.S. Civilian Production Administration 1947: 141).

PAGE 8-28 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Table 8-6.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-29 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Contractors and Subcontractors for Plant “B” Construction at Plancor #25

Table 8-7.

PAGE 8-30 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

While the DPC hired subcontractors, it also negotiated the purchase of additional lands to support the construction activities for the “Plant B” expansion. DPC purchased four large parcels of land in the P. Linney and R. Huitt surveys from the Estate of Mrs. Donna Roberts Fitzgerald on 25 March 1942, the Estate of Annie I. Stevens two days later, and from W. E. Smallwood et al. on 7 August 1942. As soon as the land was purchased, the DPC ordered construction to begin.

From 22 to 30 March, several significant construction activities took place at Plancor #25. First, the Wallace Plumbing Company laid temporary water lines. Second, the Grand Prairie Construction Company began excavation on a spur of the Texas and Pacific Railroad to provide lines to the “Plant B” Manufacturing Building (Facility 6), the Wood Shop and Garage (Facility 27), and the Figure 8-9. Plant “B” final assembly area for B-24 Bomber. Warehouse (Facility 25). North Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records. American used the Texas and Pacific track to receive engines and parts from suppliers in North Texas, to ship and receive subassemblies from Consolidated in Fort Worth, and ship assemblies to the company’s plants in Southern California. Finally, James Stewart & Company cleared and graded the land. They also supervised Mosher Steel while it erected “Plant B” and the structural steel columns and trusses for all Type “A” buildings (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 5).

From March 30 until the end of October 1942, the DPC had construction crews working around the clock on the “Plant B” expansion and, by December, North American began partial operation of its new bomber manufacturing plant (Figure 8-9). The first Dallas-produced B-24 Liberator rolled off the Plant “B” assembly line in March 1943 and was probably Figure 8-10. B-24 wing production in Plant “B” during World flown by North American test pilots War II. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records. from Hensley Field to Carswell Army Air Force Base in Fort Worth, where it was tested and qualified (Figure 8-10). The USAAF accepted the first

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-31 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

B-24 on 16 March 1943 (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 5). Neighboring NAS Dallas did not test and qualify the bomber aircraft produced at Plancor #25, only the light AT-6 Texan trainers and P-51 Mustangs; Carswell was probably assigned the responsibility of testing heavier aircraft.

FULL-SCALE OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES BEGIN AT PLANCOR #25 From 1942–45, North American’s employees at Plancor #25 worked three, 8-hour shifts, 24 hours a day, six days a week. Plancor #25 reportedly became the only aircraft factory in the entire nation to produce all three types of military planes—trainers, fighters, and bombers (Dallas Times Herald 29 Figure 8-11. Plant “A” final assembly area for the P-51 December 1942: np). In the first eight Mustang Fighter. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records. months that “Plants A” and “B” were in joint production, North American produced aircraft worth $473 million at a rate of 18 AT-6 Texans, 16 P-51 Mustangs, and 10 B-24 Bombers a week (Figure 8-11).

To meet its production demands, North American required a base work force of 17,000 employees, which at times ballooned to 38,000 (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5). The company quickly learned that it needed both new workers to accommodate B-24 production and replacement workers to alleviate its average 30% turnover rate. Since operations began in 1941, North American officials calculated that they had hired a total of 84,476 men and women and saw their turnover rate fluctuate as high as 100% (Rae 1968: 151; Dallas Morning News 8 October 1944: np). To train all these employees, North American created a War School at 2222 Ross in downtown Dallas, where classes were held 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and accommodated up to 3,000 students at one time (Dallas Morning News 7 January 1943: np). By the time the War School closed in 1944, workers logged 6,703,897 hours of instruction in over 40 different subjects, equivalent to the amount of instruction and class size of Southern Methodist University (Dallas Morning News 8 October 1944: np).

Despite constant advertising in local newspapers, North American had difficulty recruiting men to work in its Plancor #25 factories. The company resorted to hiring handicapped and older men, 16- 17-year- old boys, and professional men exempt from the draft. As early as

PAGE 8-32 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

November 1941, the shortage of available working men forced North American to recruit women into its work force. A year later, women constituted 30% of its total production force (Rae 1968: 151). Of the 6,300 employees of the “Plant A” manufacturing building in September 1943, 60% were Dallas-area women and new recruits to the industrial work force, 4,000 of whom were housewives prior to their employment at North American’s Plancor #25 (Dallas Morning News 11 September 1943). In general, women came to work in the aircraft industry “out of a patriotic desire to assist in the war effort and to augment the family income. They did not go to work with the idea of permanently displacing men in traditionally male-dominated jobs, nor did they regard their new positions as permanent feminist beachheads in the workplace” (Trimble 1990: 213).

In an effort to create loyalty among its employees, boost morale, and reduce the employee turnover and absentee rates, North American, like many other companies, sponsored recreational programs such as sports teams and tournaments, dances, beauty pageants, choirs, picnics, and outings to local amusement parks for its workers. Sports teams were divided according to gender and production areas and included popular games such as basketball, fishing, soccer, softball, baseball, football, golf, tennis, and bowling. Results of tournaments and recreational events were reported in the company magazine, North American Skyline, and its corporate newspaper, the North American Skywriter. Like many other industrial WWII publications, North American’s magazine and newspaper were cheerful and well illustrated, and included features on major production programs at the Plancor, outstanding individuals, the history of the factory, gossip, and information on friends and former employees currently serving the military (Trimble 1990: 216).

North American’s steps to appease workers and overcome its labor problems appears to have greatly influenced its employees’ production efforts during the war. The company contributed to America’s “Arsenal of Democracy” by producing nearly 15,000 AT- 6/SNJ Texans, 8,000 P-51 Mustang fighters, and more than 500 B-24 bomber aircraft. North American employees produced one of these three aircraft every 40 minutes (Dallas Morning News 4 June 1944: np). It has been reported that more planes were built at North American’s Dallas plant than anywhere else in the country—over 20,000 flyaway units and enough equipment and spare parts to total 25,000 additional aircraft (Figure 8-12) (Barksdale 1958: 7).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-33 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Figure 8-12. Aerial view of Plancor #25 following construction, circa 1943. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records.

Each of the three types of aircraft produced at Plancor #25 fulfilled different functions for the U.S. and its allies. The USAAF and Navy used the AT-6/SNJ Texan to train and prepare recruits for the newer, high- performance combat fighters and bombers (Figure 8-13). The Texan proved to be a universal trainer, Figure 8-13. The SNJ in flight. Source: Rockwell, The capable of simulating the performance Heritage of North American by Bill Yenne. of both fighters and bombers (Yenne 1989: 24). This characteristic made the aircraft both cost effective and an excellent preparatory training device for the variety of planes that new recruits might fly in combat. North American produced nearly 17,000 Texans, with Plancor #25 contributing 15,000 of this total (Donald 1997: 705). North American engineers and employees at Plancor #25 constructed 2,970 Texans from plywood and balsa wood to conserve aluminum

PAGE 8-34 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN for its combat aircraft, the P-51 Mustang (Yenne 1989: 26). All North American Texans were qualified and tested to some degree by NAS Dallas pilots, whose procedures were probably abbreviated because of wartime constraints and the desperate need for the aircraft in training exercises. In all, NAS Dallas personnel directly flew and cleared 4,421 Texans at Hensley Field before they were shipped to the fleet (Figure 8-14); Figure 8-14. SNJ-45 at NAS Dallas. Source: United States NAS Dallas Historical Record nd:1). Naval Air Stations of World War II; Volume II-Western States. by M. L Shettle, Jr. North American also enjoyed great success with its P-51 Mustang. In 1940, the British approached North American about producing the Curtiss- Wright-designed P-40, but Dallas executive Dutch Kindelberger felt that the P-40 was inadequate against the speed, capabilities, and range of Nazi interceptors. Kindelberger offered to design and build a superior combat fighter for the British instead of the P- Figure 8-15. A P-51 Mustang fighter on airport runway. 40, even though the company had Source: Rockwell, The Heritage of North American by Bill Yenne. never designed or built a fighter in its history. Procurement officials from Great Britain liked Kindelberger’s idea and ordered the proposed P-51 Mustang sight unseen. North American engineers designed and manufactured the new fighter in an unprecedented 100 days at its Inglewood, California, plant (Empires of Industry 29 June 1999). The P-51’s revolutionary innovations included thin, stream-lined wings, a 2,000- pound bomb load, a jet-like radiator system, and a Rolls Royce engine that allowed the plane to regularly reach the top speed of 443 miles per hour (Figures 8-15 & 8-16). The P-51’s Figure 8-16. P-51-D Mustang fighters on production line in Plant “A” during World War II. Source:Rockwell, The Heritage long-range capability, bomb load, and of North American by Bill Yenne.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-35 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

speed were its greatest assets. The Mustang’s reserve tanks allowed it to travel over 2,000 miles before refueling. The fighter’s speed and range are the key reasons the aircraft is regarded as one of the most important fighters of World War II (Empires of Industry 29 June 1999; Donald 1997: 702). The performance of the P-51 prototype caused its demand to skyrocket. North American’s expanded facilities in Inglewood, Kansas, and Dallas were assigned the challenge of mass-producing the fighter. Plancor #25 produced nearly 8,000 P-51 Mustangs at a rate of 16 per week during the war (Yenne 1989: 57). The P-51 fought in both the European and Pacific theaters. Over Germany skies, long-range Mustang fighters escorted bombers in and out of Berlin and overwhelmed the Luftwaffe by destroying nearly half of the fleet and blasting its bases (Yenne 1989: 57). The P-51 had tremendous dive bombing and escort capabilities that enabled the USAAF and Navy to make daring daylight raids into the heart of Germany that slowly eroded Nazi resistance (Empires of Industry 29 June 1999). Chuck Yeager, one of America’s greatest pilots, flew a P- 51 over the skies in Europe and described it as “the best American fighter in the war, equal to anything the Germans put up against her” (Yenne 1989: 54). Over the Pacific, the Mustang stormed into Iwo Jima and was vital to the capture of that base, which the Americans later used to launch an invasion into the Japanese homeland. At the conclusion of fighting in both theaters, more Mustangs survived than any other fighter, with 3,303 retained in service (Yenne 1989 48, 57).

Plancor #25 won the prestigious “E” Pennant by the Army Air Force Flying Training Command on 21 September 1942, for outstanding production efforts on its Texan trainer and Mustang fighter aircraft (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 4). The plant’s employees received the award for the production of a record 728 aircraft in a single 30- day period (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 95; Barksdale 1958: 7). The “E” Pennant was the highest honor the United States bestowed on its “civilian production soldiers” and the first awarded in the state of Texas (Hanley 1986: 47). A second “E” Pennant flew at Plancor #25 in April 1943, when the Army–Navy presented the employees with the award for the company’s continued production excellence (Dallas Morning News 7 April 1943: np).

The B-24 Liberator bomber proved to be the United States’ most extensively produced aircraft during World War II, with 19,000 total aircraft built by Consolidated in Fort Worth, North American in Dallas, and Ford at Tulsa (Donald 1997: 266–67). Plancor #25 contributed only a small percentage of the overall figure for the B-24, producing the Liberator bomber for only 19 months (Figure 8-17).

PAGE 8-36 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Figure 8-17. Production layout/floor plan for B-24 Liberator production in Plant “B” during World War II. Source: Defense Plant Corporation.

Faster than the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, the Liberator’s speed, range (3,000 miles), and availability made it popular with the U.S. military and its allies. Like the Mustang, the Liberator was used in both Europe and Japan during World War II. Often escorted by the P-51, the B-24 flew deep into Germany to drop its bomb load across Nazi territories (Empires of Industry

29 June 1999). The B-24, like many Figure 8-18. B-24 Liberator Bomber. Source: The Complete other bomber aircraft, was capable of Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. flying in high altitudes over the Himalayan Mountains after the Japanese closed the Burma Road in 1942. Later in the war, the B-24 was used exclusively to ferry aviation fuel over the Himalayans to support the operational activities of the Boeing B-29 Superfortresses in China. (Figure 8-18).

PLANCOR #25 OPERATIONS ARE REDUCED By summer 1944, the Allied Forces had taken the upper hand in both Europe and the Pacific. The United States’ superior manufacturing ability, together with the quality and quantity of its military personnel, proved to be the deciding factors in victory over the Axis

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-37 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Powers. (Eltscher & Young 1998: 95, 123). From 1940–44, American factories clearly out produced both its allies and the enemy with aircraft amounting to 27% of the total munitions output, peaking at $16 billion. DPC-owned plants in the Midwest, like Plancor #25 in Dallas, produced over 35% of all aircraft, airframes, and engines used in the war (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 49–50).

The American aircraft industry anticipated the war’s end with a combination of apprehension and optimism because the cessation of fighting meant significant cutbacks in military contracts. Dallas’s North American plant was not immune to this dilemma. Production contracts at Plancor #25 were cut back on 10 August 1944, and 3,687 employees lost their jobs when the original B-24 Liberator contract was reduced (Dallas Morning News 17 August 1944: np). A supplemental order for production of the B-29 Superfortress and nose portion of the B-25 Mitchell Bomber saved many Plancor #25 employees from dismissal, but the reprieve was only temporary (Dallas Times Herald 28 September 1944: np). Full production on the Texan and Mustang continued through January 1945, when it was reduced to approximately 60% of the earlier wartime production rates (Dallas Morning News 17 August 1944: np).

During this reduction period, the Dallas and Grand Prairie Chambers of Commerce assessed the contributions of the DPC and North American in Dallas County. In just the first eight months of 1944, North American’s total military sales topped $235,939,610, compared with $155,945,064 for all other manufactured products in Dallas County during the entire year. Grand Prairie’s population was only 2,000 when the company first came to Dallas County, but it mushroomed to 16,339 persons, largely due to the construction of Plancor #25 and NAS Dallas (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 66). At its peak, North American paid a monthly payroll of $10,442,889, compared with $15,522,683 for other businesses and industries in Dallas County during the same year (Dallas Morning News 8 August 1944). From these figures, North American clearly stimulated significant growth within Dallas county from 1941–44. Any employment reductions at Plancor #25 would greatly affect the county’s economic growth and stability.

On V-J Day, as the world celebrated the Allied victory, North American Aviation, like many employers nationwide, gave its 29,000 employees at Plancor #25 a holiday (Barksdale 1958: 7; Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 66). During the break, company officials decided to close their Dallas factory in order to remain in the aircraft

PAGE 8-38 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN manufacturing business. North American announced on Dallas radio stations and in local newspapers its decision to immediately shut down the Dallas factory on account of contract cancellations. Half of the employees were told not to return to Plancor #25 following the holiday, while the other half —approximately 17,000—were allowed to return for 15 days to prepare the plant for closure and return it to the U.S. government (Hanley 1986: 50; Bilstein & Miller 1985: 137).

INDUSTRIAL MOBILIZATION: THE TRANSITION PERIOD, AUGUST 1945–DECEMBER 1947

DEFENSE PLANT CORPORATION CLOSES SHOP In the summer of 1945, it became apparent to the Industrial Mobilization Program that the war was coming to an end. America no longer needed to fund an expansion of its industrial facilities and the DPC was officially folded back into the RFC and renamed the Office of Defense Plants, on 30 June. This action signaled the end of the DPC’s wartime work and the creation of the Office of Defense Plants’ to administer the former industrial facilities (White 1980: 89). The Office of Defense Plants recommended to the War Department that the military branches retain facilities considered critical to the manufacture of military supplies, with the remainder sold to private enterprise. On 28 July 1945 the Department of the Navy and War Department gave their consent to the disposal of excess DPC- sponsored property and, on 20 August 1945, the War Productions Board released 146 properties, including Plancor #25 (White 1980: 101).

The DPC had financed 2,098 plants in 46 different states totaling $7,939,465,000 during World War II (Table 8-8). Of that number, the DPC owned 920 plants valued at $6,055,000,000, most of which were projects nominated by the armed forces (Jones & Angly 1951). The DPC, the Industrial Mobilization Program, the War Department, and Congress considered these properties valuable not only in war but also in peacetime, because the factories would help the nation retain its military superiority. As of July 1944, the Senate War Committee and the Truman Committee urged the DPC and War Department to retain ownership of the plants and place them on standby status in the event of a future conflict or emergency (White 1980: 111).

The DPC responded to Congress and the War Department’s requests by sending its best engineers to all of its wholly owned plants and conducted surveys to determine the best postwar uses for each

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-39 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Table 8-8.

PAGE 8-40 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN factory and contractor. Guided by a set of 20 questions, the engineers recorded on each Plancor’s physical and economic characteristics, contractor’s intentions following the war, importance to the Industrial Mobilization Program, and, if it was a large plant, its prospects for multiple tenancy. The engineer assessed 879 plants and plant sites that the DPC and the War Department considered critical to maintaining the country’s military prowess. The assessments were compiled in a bound report called the Briefalogue, which was first published in October 1944 (White 1980: 100).

Facility retention or disposal depended greatly on the updated Briefalogue report, ordered by the Office of Defense Plants and published in August 1945. The new volume reported that the government owned 96% of the nation’s synthetic rubber capacity, 90% of its magnesium metal, 58% of its aluminum, 50% of its aluminum fabrication facilities, 71% of its aircraft and aircraft engine industry, and the bulk of the nation’s machine tools (White 1980: 90; Jones & Angly 1951: 316). The 1945 Briefalogue also showed that the aircraft industry was the single-most financed industry of World War II and represented half of all of all DPC investment— approximately $3.8 billion (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 50). DPC invested $2.6 billion directly in land, buildings, machines, and other equipment to build aircraft, airframes, and its parts (Jones & Angly 1951: 316). Of this number, the DPC disbursed $1.357 billion for airplane engine plants alone, yielding 14 of the 15 largest airplane plants in the nation (White 1980: 68). The DPC infused the remaining billion into aviation as capital.

The USAAF and the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics sponsored 82% of all aircraft facilities constructed for World War II, and in the waning days of the war, the aircraft manufacturing industry lost more than $21 billion in contracts, primarily from their sponsoring agencies (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 50; Eltscher & Young 1998: 127). As a result of the mass contract cancellation, the number of aircraft manufacturing companies was reduced from 66 to 16, as total sales, earning, and employment levels plummeted (Eltscher & Young 1998: 127). Consequently, the USAAF and Navy were left with many empty aircraft factories following the war, including Plancor #25 in Dallas County. Because it no longer actively produced aircraft for the USAAF, on 28 July 1945, Plancor #25 was added to the list of disposable properties presented to the Office of Defense Plants.

Like many other excess Plancors, the Office of Defense Plants listed the former North American Aviation Dallas County aircraft plant as

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-41 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Figure 8-19. A notice printed in the Wall Street Journal, circa 1945, advertising surplus DPC property. Plancor #25 is listed in the lower left corner. Source: Defense Plant Corporation.

PAGE 8-42 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN surplus property and for sale in advertisements across the nation (Figure 8-19). The Office of Defense Plants advertised Plancor #25 as readily convertible for multiple manufacturing purposes such as commercial airplanes or parts, automobiles and trucks, refrigerators, unit heaters, or products consisting principally of sheet metal and small machined parts (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 65–66). The two large components (Plant “A” and Plant “B”) were rated ideal for multiple tenancy and capable of operating independently of other suppliers or contractors. Its location, proximity to transportation, and abundant labor pool were also touted as advantages.

The sheer size of Plancor #25—85 buildings on a 272-acre site— worked against its outright sale to a private corporation. The plant’s nearly 3 million square feet of manufacturing space, including facilities, land, machinery, and equipment, was valued at approximately $35 million (Dallas Morning News 24 December 1945: np). In addition, the air-conditioning required to cool the factories’ high and wide bays added to operational costs (White 1980: 105). When no companies appeared to purchase Plancor #25 and many other government-owned aircraft plants, the Office of Defense Plants decided to retain ownership and seek potential tenants rather than buyers. The most important factors behind this decision to retain Plancor #25 were the plants proximity to NAS Dallas, its ability to be converted easily to wartime production, and its capability to produce three different types of aircraft (Engineer’s Final Report 1944: 65–67).

PLANCOR #25 CHANGES OWNERSHIP As the Office of Defense Plants processed the official transfer of Plancor #25 to the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics, it also sought new tenants for the factory (Dallas Morning News 31 October 1945: np). Many potential tenants, such as the Glenn L. Martin Aircraft Company, placed bids with the Office of Defense Plants, but most wanted only partial occupancy or rental on a single building; these conditions did not appeal to either the Office of Defense Plants or the Navy (Notes on Telephone Conversation with Lt. Caufield 18 February 1946: np). While efforts to find a permanent tenant for Plancor #25 continued, the Office of Defense Plants and the Navy began considering an interim lease and deal proposed by former North American Aviation executives. The executives submitted a bid in November 1945 to lease “Plant A” and $800,000 worth of equipment for use in aircraft subcontracting work as well as other, more diversified, commercial products. Their offer provided jobs for a minimum of 3,000 displaced aircraft workers and included rent on

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-43 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

at least one factory space until the Navy could locate a more permanent arrangement (Barksdale 1958: 13).

Executives Robert McCulloch, Dutch Kindelberger, Al Graf, and Bert Howard left North American following the closure of Plancor #25 in August 1945 and formed their own aircraft subcontracting firm, TEMCO. The company was created with $250,000 in capital collected from local businessmen, primarily Colonel D. Harold Byrd, a Dallas oil-man and TEMCO’s largest investor and stockholder (Brown 1972: 73; Barksdale 1958: 13). Through TEMCO’s local business support, the newly formed company acquired two different types of contracts prior to its bid on Plant “A” of Plancor #25. The first contract included an agreement with Fort Worth-based Fairchild Aircraft Corporation to assist with the production of the C-82 Packet cargo plane and F-24 cabin monoplane (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 137). TEMCO received a contract with local merchants to manufacture 14,000 popcorn vending machines (Barksdale 1958: 14). TEMCO’s commercial and production orders cemented the Office of Defense Plant’s decision to temporarily lease part of Plancor #25 to the Texas company.

In addition to the TEMCO/Plancor #25 lease, the Office of Defense Plants arranged other agreements for many other vacant aircraft plants across the nation. The Office of Defense Plant’s 1945–1947 efforts were stop-gap measures that attempted to sustain the financial viability of the plants while the government and Congress established legislation to formalize ownership of the properties. In February 1946, the RFC, on behalf of the Office of Defense Plants, filed a letter of intent with the War Assets Administration stating that Plancor #25 would be permanently transferred to the Department of the Navy, which could then either sell the plant outright or lease it at its discretion (Dallas Morning News 2 October 1946: np). It was not until August 1947 that Congress introduced legislation that formalized this arrangement, an act that authorized military management of an industrial reserve comprising former DPC- financed plants and tools (White 1980: 112).

President Harry S. Truman signed the Industrial Reserve Act (Public Law 883, 80th Congress) on 1 December 1947, and it became law early in 1948. The plants listed in the Act formed the basis of the new GOCO facilities program. The legislation authorized three types of GOCOs—ammunition, missiles, and aircraft/aerospace manufacturers—that provided the government with many advantages beyond the ability to lease excess properties. The military retained

PAGE 8-44 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN ownership of the plants while shifting the day-to-day operational duties to a private contractor, who paid a nominal rental fee. In addition, the government possessed 145 emergency reserve plants that could quickly, and legally, be converted to wartime production in an emergency. The legislation assigned the Department of the Navy plants worth nearly $334,503,000 across the nation, including the Dallas County facilities (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 47–49; White 1980: 112).

THE COLD WAR PERIOD

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ASSUMES COMMAND AT DALLAS Once it obtained stewardship of the former Plancor #25, the Department of the Navy renamed the factory NIRAP Dallas and began searching for a new, more permanent tenant to manufacture naval aircraft (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 48). The Navy also assigned its own representative (NAVPRO) Lt. Commander W. J. Moyer to NIRAP Dallas, who assessed the situation at the plant and found that TEMCO utilized its manufacturing floor space extremely efficiently and had gained a respectable reputation as an aircraft subassembly manufacturer (Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant nd: 1). The 1947 NAVPRO assessment recommended that the Navy keep TEMCO at NIRAP Dallas.

The Navy followed from the NAVPRO recommendation and agreed to continue leasing part of the plant to TEMCO. The Navy and TEMCO signed a five-year lease on “Plant A” and its ancillary buildings on 7 December 1947. The company also requested a month-to-month temporary lease on “Plant B” to expand its production on the Globe “Swift” aircraft. The Navy consented to TEMCO’s use of the neighboring plant as long as the company vacated when a permanent tenant was located (Dallas Morning News 12 December 1947: np; Bilstein & Miller 1985: 137). Thus, the Navy decided on multiple-tenancy for NIRAP Dallas, with TEMCO subleasing “Plant A” from an experienced aircraft manufacturer engaged in prime contracting work for the Navy, who felt that established companies, with previous Navy and governmental contracts, were ideal tenants for its 26-different GOCO plants, including NIRAP Dallas (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 50).

THE NAVY LOCATES A NEW TENANT FOR NIRAP DALLAS Immediately following the war, the Pentagon became alarmed about communist aggression and the Soviet Union’s acquisition of the atomic bomb. It again recommended that coastal aircraft companies

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-45 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

move to inland locations (Hanley 1986: 50; Brown 1972: 50). In one area of the Mid-Atlantic Coast, 10 major aircraft, airframe, and engine companies —Pratt & Whitney, Grumman, Republic, Glenn L. Martin, Fairchild, Chance Vought, Hamilton Standard Propellers, Sikorsky Helicopter & Aircraft, and United Aircraft Corporation— were located within a short distance of one another (Dallas Morning News 18 December 1947: np).

One of these companies, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, occupied a Navy-owned manufacturing plant in Stratford, Connecticut, that was built as part of the World War II industrial facilities expansion. The 11-building plant provided only 400,000 square feet of space, which proved to be increasingly insufficient for the company’s burgeoning jet aircraft program (Figure 8-20) (Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II 1947: 397). Since Vought first occupied the Stratford site in 1940, the company grew in a haphazard fashion, increasing fivefold. No surrounding or adjacent lands were available to build new facilities, due to the presence of 10 other major aircraft corporations conducting similar business in the Figure 8-20. Vought manufacturing facility in Stratford, Connecticut. Source: Chance Vought News. vicinity (Barksdale 1958: 18; Wings for the Navy 1943: np). Vought concluded that continued operation at Stratford would not be cost effective if their products continued to shift to high-speed jet aircraft and missiles. These programs required more space, additional facilities, and longer airport runways (Rae 1968: 188). However, the company had no space to build additional facilities or runway extensions because of area congestion and increased air traffic, which made the testing and qualifying of aircraft difficult (Hanley 1986: 50).

The Department of the Navy was aware of Vought’s problems at its Stratford facilities and in December 1947, invited the company to examine the NIRAP Dallas factory (Dallas Morning News 4 December 1947: np). Chance Vought had been producing quality naval and military aircraft for decades and had an excellent reputation for fulfilling contracts and maintaining its facilities. The company proved to be an excellent candidate for tenancy at Dallas.

PAGE 8-46 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Jack Hospers, vice president of Vought’s sales and service, recalled the differing reactions in Stratford and Dallas to the Navy’s offer: “The mayor of Stratford did not seem to care whether Vought was there or not. Dallas sent a high-level delegation to discuss the possibility of a relocation” (Hanley 1986: 50).

After Vought’s meeting with the Dallas officials, the company sent a survey team to North Texas to assess the facility, conditions and climate (Dallas Times Herald 18 December 1947: np; Hanley 1986: 50). Vought’s survey team returned to Stratford with a positive report on NIRAP Dallas: It liked the low taxes, the 10–15% lower wage market, the weather conditions, and the highly efficient production rates achieved by employees under North American and TEMCO. Even though Connecticut-area residents had decades of experience in aircraft manufacturing, Vought’s survey team found Dallas County’s labor pool superior to Stratford’s, in more abundant supply, and vastly more patriotic than that on the Atlantic Coast (Hanley 1986: 50). The most important factors to Vought officials was NIRAP Dallas’s design: It was planned with care, purpose, and specifically for aircraft production, which promised to save the company time and money. Operations at Stratford were costly in proportion to earnings because the plant was not equipped or arranged for maximum efficiency (Barksdale 1958: 18).

The Vought survey report influenced the Board of Directors, for they voted to relocate the plant in May 1947. Once the move was approved and the Navy was notified, the cities of Dallas and Grand Prairie were informed that Chance Vought, a subsidiary of the United Aircraft and Transport Corporation, would be locating its $17 million annual payroll in Dallas County. The formal announcement came in April 1948 and caused a flood of applicants at the Texas Employment Commission office. Approximately 4,000–5,000 applicants requested job opportunities at Vought (Dallas Morning News 18 April 1948: np; Dallas Morning News 20 April 1948: np). Four months later, on 8 August 1948, the Navy and Vought signed a formal lease on NIRAP Dallas’ Plant “B” manufacturing building and its support structures, which amounted to the majority of all structures at the complex (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 138).

As a condition of its lease with the Navy, Vought also agreed to sublease the Plant “A,” Facility 1 manufacturing building and a few of its structures to TEMCO. This multiple tenancy agreement and the wholesale move of a manufacturer from one Navy-owned plant to another was a unique step in the brief history of the GOCO program

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-47 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

itself, but was consistent with Department of Defense (DOD) policies on aircraft industry dispersal (Rae 1968: 188). The Navy agreed to install a long, metal chain-link fence between the TEMCO and Vought sides of the plant as part of an overall improvement project at the NIRAP Dallas facility. The modification was made from September 1948 until early 1949, and coincided with Vought’s relocation from Stratford to Dallas (Figures 8-21 & 8-22).

VOUGHT MOVES TO DALLAS As part of its 1948 contract, the Navy agreed to help its new tenant move more than 27 million pounds of company-owned equipment from Stratford to Dallas. Early in negotiations, Vought expressed a Figure 8-21. Aerial photograph of Chance Vought facilities at NIRAP Dallas, circa 1947–48. Source: NWIRP Dallas Facility desire to retain its own equipment Records. rather than lease all of NIRAP’s equipment and machines. When North American left Dallas in 1945, employees took or destroyed nearly $200,000 worth of the NIRAP’s equipment, machines, and tools (Final Report on Accountability nd: np). Considering the facility’s incomplete stock, the Navy may have agreed that helping Vought move its equipment was more cost effective than replacing the missing pieces. Vought’s relocation to NIRAP Dallas included shipping more than 50,000 special tools, jigs, templates and presses 1,687 miles Figure 8-22. The front gate and chain-link fence between Plant from Connecticut to Texas. The “A” and Plant “B,” circa 1947–48. Source: NWIRP company used automobiles, trucks, Dallas Facility Records. trains and 1,006 freight cars to carry the 27,077,078 pounds of machinery in a two-year move touted as the largest relocation in American industrial history (Barksdale 1958: 18–19; Bilstein & Miller 1985: 138; Rae 1968: 188–89).

One reason Vought wanted to retain its equipment and machines was because the company felt its existing managers and trainers could

PAGE 8-48 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN teach their new employees faster on familiar systems. Vought planned to hire the vast majority of its employees from North Texas, except for 1,300 key Stratford personnel, including the company’s engineers, designers, managers, trainers, executives, and corporate officials. Vought funded the cost for moving its employees and agreed to help locate housing accommodations. The company had 16 full-time employees working under Vought’s housing supervisor Ted Mitchell, whose sole job was to locate housing for 1,200 to 1400 families making the move to Dallas (Dallas Times Herald 30 November 1948: np; Dallas Morning News 12 September 1948: np).

The City of Grand Prairie did not have enough available housing for more than a thousand new families, and began work immediately to build homes and apartment communities for Vought’s transferred employees. In April 1948, Acadia Heights, a new housing subdivision near the plant, along with fifty 8-unit apartment homes funded through the Federal Housing Authority, was begun (Figure 8-23) (Dallas Morning News 25 April 1948: np). In a single year, Grand Prairie furnished Vought with 193 new homes at a cost to the city of $752,450, but this tremendous effort still proved inadequate. In a joint venture between Vought and the cities of Grand Prairie and Dallas, construction commenced on an Figure 8-23. Map of the Acadia Heights subdivision in relation additional 100 homes in a to NIRAP Dallas and NAS Dallas. Source: NWIRP Dallas neighborhood called the Little Payne Facility Records. Addition (Dallas Morning News 25 April 1948: np). It took the cities of Dallas and Grand Prairie over a year to build enough housing to accommodate Vought employees who were tranferring from Connecticut to Texas (Rae 1968: 188–89).

Vought carried out its move in incremental phases in order to keep up its production, staggering its production activities from late 1947 to 1 July 1949. production activities. In Connecticut, the company to continued manufacture its F4U Corsair piston-engine fighter, while it used its partially occupied Dallas facilities to produce Vought- designed support aircraft and the initial preproduction prototypes of the company’s newest products (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 138).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-49 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

EXPANSION OF NIRAP DALLAS Vought’s main complaint about its Stratford facilities was the sparse and inadequate manufacturing space. In sharing space with TEMCO, Vought officials feared they would outgrow NIRAP Dallas as they had Stratford. To ease this concern and accommodate Vought’s expanding jet aircraft and missile production requirements, the Navy decided to construct additional facilities at NIRAP Dallas (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 138; Barksdale 1958: 18). The Navy contributed $12.4 million to a 1948–49 expansion at Dallas that included new facilities and production equipment for Vought, which provided the company enough space to meet productive commitments, reduce overall backlog, and increase research and development capabilities (Barksdale 1958: 19). Vought contributed $2,927,289.93 of its corporate funds to further expand its Plant “B” buildings at NIRAP Dallas (Analysis of Leasehold Improvements nd: 1).

Vought undertook research and development activities on several Navy-sponsored projects in the late 1940s that required modern and larger engineering and laboratory space. Facility 49, a 129,000- square-foot building adjacent to the Facility 7 office building, was the largest project undertaken during the post-World War II expansion. This building accommodated a new Engineering Department and Laboratory Building (Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4).

Facility 6, the Plant “B” manufacturing building, received four newly constructed internal processing areas that increased Vought’s productive capacity on its F4U Corsair, F6U Pirate, F7U Cutlass, and F8U Crusader jet aircraft programs. Some of these projects were already in production, while others were simply in the development and testing phases, prior to Vought’s relocation to NIRAP Dallas. Along the west end of Facility 6, the Navy built and installed equipment for a Metallite Processing Department. Vought created and patented Metallite during World War II, but used it only on the production of aircraft after 1945. Metallite was a light, malleable aluminum alloy bonded to both sides of a balsa wood sheet. The final product was only a quarter-inch thick and highly resistant to wrinkle or damage (Jones 1977: 229). The inherently stiff Metallite provided Vought with an alternative to both aluminum and steel because it was lightweight and improved aerodynamics and performance in jet aircraft. An added benefit of Metallite was its relatively low cost to Vought, since it was entirely manufactured at NIRAP Dallas. However, despite Metallite’s use in the production of some aircraft skins, Vought still relied on aluminum, steel, and other light-weight

PAGE 8-50 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN alloys for most of its manufacturing activities. The three major processing areas added to Facility 6 in the expansion were devoted to heat treatment of both steel and aluminum, and for the anodizing, dichromate, and other metal-working processes (Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4).

The final building constructed at NIRAP Dallas was Facility 76, a million dollar, 58,000-square-foot final production hangar located adjacent to Hensley Field. Vought needed Facility 76 for production activities related to the company’s first jet aircraft programs, the F6U Pirate and F7U Cutlass. The hangar was used for painting, Metallite testing, final inspection, engine run-up, and preflight preparations of high-performance jet aircraft (Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4; The Flying V News July 1949: 1, 3).

The Navy extended Hensley Field at NAS Dallas as its last project in the 1948–49 NIRAP expansion, which occurred from August 1949 to 1 March 1950. The Department of the Navy provided partial funding, and the City of Dallas appropriated $256,000 to extend the north–south runway at Hensley from 5,200 to 7,500 feet. The added length gave Chance Vought adequate runway distance to test the Pirate and Cutlass jet aircraft (Flying V News August 1949: 1). The expansion at NIRAP Dallas benefited both Vought and the Navy. By increasing Vought’s manufacturing capacity, the company reduced its overall backlog and the Navy received its products faster. The expansion also gave the Navy an opportunity to upgrade and catalog its new and valuable industrial holding at Dallas. Between 1947 and 1966, the Department of the Navy controlled 11 GOCOs involved in the manufacture and testing of jet and rocket engines (Yoshpe & Franke 1968: 50). The improvements to NIRAP Dallas represented the Navy’s goal to improve and modernize some of its GOCO facilities, which probably occurred at other sites nationwide. For example, Navy-owned NIRAP St. Louis, occupied by McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, also underwent expansion during this period.

VOUGHT BEGINS PRODUCTION AT NIRAP DALLAS Much of the 1948–49 facilities expansion at NIRAP Dallas was related to the manufacture of Stratford-designed products: the F4U Corsair, F7U Cutlass, F6U Pirate, and the Regulus Missile. Designed in 1938 and in production since 30 June 1941, the Navy used the F4U Corsair extensively in both Europe and the Pacific during World War II. It was one of the few propeller-driven aircraft used in combat after 1945 (Figure 8-24) (Jones 1977: 171, 173; Donald 1997: 256). The Corsair remained in production longer than any other American

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-51 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

fighter; manufacturers supplied 12,571 aircraft to the Navy, Marines, and USAAF (Jones 1977: 174; Donald 1997: 256). Vought produced six versions of the Corsair in Stratford for almost 10 years and one version at NIRAP Dallas from 1947 to 1952 for service in the Korean War.

The Chance Vought F6U Pirate was Figure 8-24. F6U Pirate. Source: U.S Naval Fighters by Lloyd S. Jones. also designed in Stratford but produced in both Connecticut and at NIRAP Dallas, but in far less numbers than the Corsair (Figure 8-25). Responding to the Navy’s early 1944 request for a jet-propelled fighter, the Pirate was Vought’s first production jet aircraft and also the company’s first product made of its patented Metallite technology (Jones 1977: 229). On 2 October 1946, Vought entered the Pirate in a Navy’s Bureau of Figure 8-25. F4U Corsair in flight. Source: U.S Naval Fighters Aeronautics’ competition at Muroc by Lloyd S. Jones. Dry Lake, California. As a result of the prototype’s performance, the Navy ordered 30 production Pirates. From the outset, Vought encountered problems in the design and testing of the production aircraft; most notably, the prototype flew at speeds of nearly 600 mph but the production Pirate reached only 478 mph (Jones 1977: 231). This problem did not discourage the Navy from ordering an additional 35 F6U Pirates. The first Vought-produced Pirate entered naval service in July 1949, but the Pirate’s poor performance prevented the aircraft’s operational use by the Navy and it was relegated to training units (Jones 1977: 231; Donald 1997: 231). Production on the Pirate began in Stratford, but ended at NIRAP Dallas, when the Navy cancelled its order for 35 new Pirates in mid-1950 (Donald 1997: 231).

When Vought introduced the Pirate at the Muroc Dry Lake competition in 1946, it also showcased the F7U Cutlass (Figures 8-26 and 8-27), the company’s second jet aircraft. The Cutlass featured an unusual design, which Vought based on German aerodynamic research carried out during World War II. (The Navy provided American manufacturers with German research in late 1945.) Guided

PAGE 8-52 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

by the data, Vought engineers in Stratford prepared a prototype to compete in a Navy design competition at the Naval Air Test Center in 1946 (Donald 1997: 257; Jones 1977: 248, 251). The resulting design produced an unorthodox twin-jet, carrier-based fighter with sharply angled flying surfaces, afterburners, and no tail (Jones 1977: 248, 251).

Vought produced its first two F7U Figure 8-26. F7U Cutlass in flight. Source: U.S Naval Fighters Cutlass prototypes in Stratford. The by Lloyd S. Jones. first flew on 29 September 1948 and the second crashed during testing on 14 March 1949. Despite the crash, the Navy ordered 14 additional Cutlass jets, which were manufactured entirely at NIRAP Dallas (Jones 1977: 251). The problems that caused the 1949 crash were corrected in these production models and the Cutlass proved to be the first U.S. naval jet to reach supersonic speeds (Donald 1997: 257).

Figure 8-27. Cutlass jet aircraft in final assembly area of Plant “B.” Source: Chance Vought News, circa 1953.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-53 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Vought produced over 300 F7U Cutlass jet aircraft at NIRAP Dallas from March 1950 through 1955. The vast majority of these production models were used by the Marines for high-speed mine-laying tests; a few served with the Navy’s Blue Angels as demonstration aircraft (Jones 1977: 252).

In 1947, while the company was negotiating its lease on NIRAP Dallas with the Navy, the Bureau of Aeronautics asked Chance Vought to begin initial development on a guided missile. The Navy introduced guided missiles to its arsenal immediately following World War II, when German scientists, who were researching rocket weapons for the Nazis, came to Figure 8-28. Regulus I in flight. Source: Regulus: The Forgotten Weapon by David K. Stumpf. America to work for the U.S. military at the White Sands Proving Ground in New Mexico (Guided Missiles 1997: np). The DOD defined the missile as an “unmanned vehicle moving about the earth’s surface whose trajectory or flight path is capable of being altered by a mechanism within the vehicle” (Chance Vought News March 1953: 5). The broad and vague DOD definition mentions nothing about the missile’s size, speed, power plant, direction of travel, or deployment, most likely to prevent America’s communist enemies from assessing the United States’ increased defensive and striking power with the addition of this weapon to its military arsenal (Chance Vought News March 1953: 5).

Chance Vought named its guided missile the Regulus (Figure 8-28). The simple, innovative, and versatile design of the Regulus made it affordable and desirable to the Navy, and an uncredited source described it as “a very ordinary, unsensational, inexpensive missile, but one of the most fiendish and destructive little devices ever conceived by the tortured mind of man” (Barksdale 1958: 19). Vought’s guided missile was the first designed specifically to carry an atomic warhead and could be launched from submarines, cruisers, guided missile ships, aircraft carriers, and land bases (Chance Vought News March 1953: 1, 5; Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: np). The Regulus was economical and easy to install, with little

PAGE 8-54 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

modification to the launching vehicle. Vought equipped each training and testing Regulus with tricycle landing gear so that it could be recovered and reused, enabling the Navy to use each production Regulus at least 10 times. Its inexpensive and quick installation, combined with its ability to be reused, cut the Regulus’s cost to one- tenth that of comparable programs carried out by other aerospace companies (Chance Vought News March 1953: 1). In 1949, when construction was completed on NIRAP Dallas’s new engineering building (Facility 49), the company moved its missile program from Connecticut to Texas, where all Regulus production models were manufactured.

THE KOREAN CONFLICT: 1950–1956 The proliferation of communism throughout the world and resulting Cold War (1946–89) fueled the aviation industry following World War II. The Korean War (1950–1953) was the first conflict of this period. Its origins resulted directly from the spread of communism into Asia following World War II and the threat it represented to the democratic nations of the world. Following Japan’s surrender to allied forces, the Soviet Union occupied North Korea and the United States controlled the south. When the United Nations (U.N.) called for free, unified elections throughout Korea in 1948, the Soviet Union refused to permit North Koreans from voting and instead proclaimed a communist dictatorship, renaming the country the People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea). Following this move, Russia withdrew its troops from Korea, leaving behind an entrenched communist regime and a well-trained, well-equipped North Korean Army (Korean War 1997: np). South Korea’s smaller and ill-equipped army was incapable of defending itself when the North crossed the 38th parallel boundary line in a surprise invasion on 25 June 1950. Within hours of the invasion, the U.N. Security Council called for an immediate cease- fire. North Korea ignored the order and, two days later, the Security Council urged U.N. members to assist South Korea in expelling the communist invaders. President Harry S. Truman came to the defense of South Korea by providing weapons, and supplies and directing Army General Douglas MacArthur to assemble ground forces and inspect the battlefront. By July, the U.N. appointed General MacArthur as Supreme Commander of a 16-nation UN force, consisting of 300,000 Americans that included the Marines, Air Force, and Navy (Korean War 1997: np).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-55 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

PRODUCTION FOR THE KOREAN WAR BEGINS AT NIRAP DALLAS When the Korean conflict developed in June 1950, the American aerospace industry was asked to meet the supply needs of the U.N. force. MacArthur’s military strategy relied heavily on the use of airpower, bombs, and missiles. By the end of the conflict, Navy and Marine Air Corps flew 276,000 offensive sorties, pounded the enemy with 177,000 tons of bombs, and blasted them with over a quarter of a million rockets (Caras 1965: 195). Vought saw an immediate increase in its orders as a result of the Korean War and was the beneficiary of Navy and Marine contracts for both its aircraft and missiles. Of all its products manufactured for Korea, Vought received the most orders for its Regulus missile, 514 of which were used during the war. The company’s F7U Cutlass was its most popular jet aircraft manufactured at NIRAP Dallas during the conflict (Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: 7).

Chance Vought began work on the Cutlass following the company’s relocation to Dallas, flying the first prototype at Hensley Field on 29 September 1948. (Donald 1997: 257–58). Just months before communist North Korea invaded the South, the Navy placed one of several orders for the Cutlass, which remained in production through 1955 (Donald 1997: 258). However, the expense and the problems associated with maintaining Cutlass jets prevented the Navy, or any military branch, from using this jet in combat during Korea (Jones 1977: 252).

In fact, the F4U-5N Corsair was the only Vought-designed aircraft that saw combat action during the Korean War. Shortly before the North Korean invasion, the Marines ordered 110 Corsairs in a new combat attack version. The Marines used the Corsair to fly low-level reconnaissance and night operations, surprising North Korean forces. One squadron of F4U-5N Corsairs used its superior radar systems to locate and attack ground forces in total darkness and with great accuracy, while other Marine Corsairs squadrons wreaked havoc on communication centers (Jones 1977: 175). Even though the Corsair was considered obsolete by the time conflict erupted in Korea, one of its pilots gained fame as a night-fighting ace by downing five enemy aircraft in only 18 days and another destroyed a far superior Soviet MiG-15 fighter (Jones 1977: 175–76).

VOUGHT AND THE NAVY EXPAND PLANT “B” FACILITIES The Vought aerospace products ordered by the armed forces from 1950–55 were already designed, tested, and in production by the time war erupted in Korea. With increased orders and demand for the

PAGE 8-56 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN company’s aircraft and missiles, Vought needed new workers and additional facilities to meet its contractual requirements for the F7U Cutlass, Corsair, and Regulus. At the outset of the war, Vought had only 8,200 employees at NIRAP Dallas. The company’s prewar payroll of $32 million jumped to nearly $100 million by war’s end. Vought employed 18,000 employees from 1950–53 (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5; Dallas Morning News 7 October 1951: 1).

Early in 1951, Vought publicly announced a 3,000-person hiring program at NIRAP Dallas in response to the company’s production schedule on the F7U Cutlass aircraft for the Navy. The new Cutlass personnel raised employment at NIRAP Dallas from 8,000 to 11,000 (Dallas Morning News 26 September 1951: np). Vought quickly found the increase was insufficient, and determined that the company needed to hire at a pace of 240 persons for more than a year to meet its production requirements on the Regulus, F4U Corsair, and its subcontracting commitments for components of the Boeing B-47 Stratojet Bomber and Lockheed’s P2V Neptune Patrol bomber (Chance Vought News October 1951: 1). In 1953, during the height of the Korean War, employment at NIRAP Dallas peaked at 18,000 persons, a number that remained constant to the end of the war (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5).

Vought looked for all levels of production workers–skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled categories–from the North Texas labor pool. The company advertised that jobs as “tool designers, tool planners, researchers, jig builders, time study men, sheet metal fabricators, machinists, assemblers, and bench hands” were available for men, but opportunities for women were limited at NIRAP Dallas (Dallas Morning News 26 September 1951: np). Most of the workers hired at NIRAP Dallas during the Korean War came from Dallas, Grand Prairie, Arlington, Ft. Worth, and Irving. The remaining labor pool came from all over rural North Texas. Overall, the Korean War hiring program at NIRAP Dallas had wide-ranging and positive affects on the economy in North Texas.

In addition to hiring new employees during the war, Vought needed additional manufacturing space at NIRAP Dallas for its Cutlass and Regulus programs. In late 1951, Vought announced a $4 million Spring Building Program that included construction of new facilities, upgrading existing NIRAP buildings, and adding new parking lots to accommodate the hiring program (Dallas Morning News 7 October 1951: np; Chance Vought News April 1952: 1). Vought, rather than

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-57 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

the Navy, funded the majority of construction on the new buildings at NIRAP Dallas. The Navy provided the land for the Spring Building Program, while Vought supplied the funding, contractors, and architects. By law, the Navy retained ownership of the new facilities, but Vought recouped all its construction costs through government tax credits that were very similar to incentives offered during World War II. The House of Representatives Committee on Government Operations developed procedures for contractor-sponsored construction at Navy-owned GOCO sites as part of the 1947–48 National Industrial Reserve Act (White 1980: 112; Commander, Naval Air Systems Command 29 March 1981: 1). They consisted of the following:

• The contractor requested written permission to build on a site or modify a building from the GOCO NAVPRO on-site representative • NAVPRO forwarded the request to the Department of the Navy Property Management and Disposal Services, which approved or denied the new facilities • The Navy asked the GOCO contractor to provide an inventory and dollar value of construction costs, machines, equipment, and tooling • The Department then considered whether to amortize the yearly taxes on the building. The criteria for approving tax deferments are unknown, but were probably linked to the amount of naval orders produced by the GOCO making the request. Since most of the products manufactured at NIRAP Dallas were used exclusively by the Navy, Vought did not pay taxes on any of its Korean War-period facility improvements until 1971, pursuant to Public Law 388 (D Whitney Thornton to James F. Taylor 15 November 1971: 1).

After examining Vought’s Spring Building Program plan, the Navy agreed to fund the construction of one building and to supervise the construction of the other new facilities on government-owned land. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks approved contractor’s choices for architect, builder, and designs prior to construction. In some cases, the Bureau of Yards and Docks supplied the architectural drawings when they found the proposed design inadequate. Between 1952 and 1954, Vought spent more than $8.7 million for additional facilities and improvements as part of the Spring Building Program.

PAGE 8-58 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The cost was more than double the initial $4 million estimate (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1).

Vought began its construction of a new parking lot, the installation of new air conditioning in all cafeteria buildings, and the construction of at least two new buildings, Facilities 93 and 94, in April 1952 (Chance Vought News April 1952: 1, 4). The Navy paid for three improvements to existing facilities, whereas Vought funded the new parking lot and air conditioning systems. The Farwell Company of Dallas replaced the air conditioning units in Facilities 11, 12, and 31 at a cost of $47,000 between April and June 1952. Another facility improvement that benefited the employees of NIRAP was the construction of a 16,400-square-yard parking lot west of the Plant “B” high bay area. The addition of 400 parking spaces eased overcrowding at the plant and made it easier for Vought employees to exit the plant via Jefferson Boulevard and Southeast 14th Street. The Reinhart Company of Fort Worth built the parking lot at a cost of $70,000 (Chance Vought News April 1952: 1). The last improvement to existing NIRAP buildings included the replacement of the Plant “B” fire alarm system, the installation of new sprinklers in both Plants “A” and “B”, and the installation of oil bath filters in the air conditioning systems of Plant “B” (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4).

Facility 93 was the first new building constructed as part of the Spring Building Program. The Bureau of Yards and Docks supplied Vought with the architectural drawings, and James Stewart & Company performed all the general construction, which began June 1, 1952 (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4). Vought spent more than $1.3 million on Facility 93, which met the company’s need for a large and conveniently located warehouse, manufacturing, and shipping building. The one-story, 78,000-plus-square-foot masonry structure (Facility 93) was built between the railroad sidings on the south side of Plant “B” (Facility 6) to provide Vought with railroad loading docks on the building’s north and south sides (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4). Vought used Facility 93 to ship finished products, such as the Regulus, Cutlass, Pirate, and Corsair to the Navy and to receive and then ship subassembly work back to the prime contractor. James Stewart & Company constructed a loading dock and special features for shipping and receiving Lockheed and Boeing nose sections. Internally, the building was equipped with unique bridge cranes and a monorail system for moving materials from one end of the building to another (Chance Vought News April

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-59 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

1952: 4). James Stewart & Company completed construction on Facility 93 in 1953, at the height of Vought’s Korean War production.

When construction began on Facility 93 in June 1952, Vought was still planning Facility 94, a research, design, and structures test lab for the Regulus I Missile Program. Vought hired architects Corgan, Lane & Associates A/E of Dallas to design its 88,647-square-foot, hangar-type laboratory, with steel columns, steel trussing, and “Robertson” metal siding, which matched existing Plant “B” structures constructed during World War II (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4). In the summer of 1953, Carpenter Brothers Construction Company of Dallas began the general construction on Facility 94’s structural test lab located northwest of the Plant “B,” high bay area. It was completed on 1 January 1954 and the Navy paid the entire $1.7 million cost (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4; Chance Vought News June 1953: 1).

Along with Facility 94, Vought decided to fund and build five additional buildings: Facilities 95, 97, 102, 103, and 106. The first two supported its Regulus Missile program while the others served jet aircraft production. Construction on Facility 95 began sometime in 1953 and was completed in early 1954. The Bureau of Yards and Docks supplied the architectural drawings and O’Rourke

Figure 8-29. Facility 97 under construction in the summer of 1953. Source: Chance Vought News.

PAGE 8-60 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Construction Company of Dallas performed the general construction activities related to the 8,190-square-foot building. Facility 95 provided Vought with a test cell building for the Regulus Missile at a cost of $215,180.09. Test cells furnish both the power and control mechanism for guided missiles. They are either self-contained rocket motors or air-breathing jet engines, but may also be airfoils or outside booster charges from ramp or tube launchers (Guided Missiles 1997: np). Vought tested these power sources in Facility 95. On 18 June 1953, Vought broke ground on Facility 97, a $1.7 million guided missile hangar to store and test the Regulus (Figure 8-29). Harwood K. Smith & Joseph M. Mills A/E of Dallas designed Facility 97 with almost 70,000 square feet of workspace that contained a high bay area, electronics test areas, storage, and office and workroom space for expanded production on the Regulus. O’Rourke Construction Company completed Facility 97 in January 1954 (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1). Vought used Facility 97 primarily to check and ground test the Regulus prior to its delivery to the West Coast for flight operations (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1–2). Regulus missiles leaving the Plant “B,” Facility 6 production lines were taken to Facility 97 for final installation of the missile’s internal components and the individual testing of all electronic systems. Following this process, Vought employees moved the missiles to flight testing, which included the simulation of engine start-up, take-off, climb, cruise, and let-down simulation (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1).

In 1954, Vought completed the last of its three buildings—Facilities 102, 103, and 106—as part of the company’s Spring Building Program. All three buildings were related to Vought’s jet aircraft program in one way or another. The Bureau of Yards and Docks supplied architectural plans for the facilities and O’Rourke Construction Company provided the general construction services. Facility 102, a machine tool storage building, was the first constructed. The 27,649-square-foot building was used to store the specialized machine tools required to manufacture jet aircraft and cost Vought $149,373.33. The second finished building, a jet-engine test cell building (Facility 103), provided the company with 5,253 square feet of laboratory space and was used to test the F7U Cutlass and, later, Vought’s F8U Crusader. Facility 103 cost only $109,836.88. Facility 106 was the last of the buildings constructed as part of the Spring Building Program, and Vought used the 6,289-

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-61 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

square-foot building to assemble jet engines for the Pirate, and Cutlass and, later, the Crusader and Corsair II manufacturing programs. The building, which initially cost Vought $63,874.41, underwent expansion during the Vietnam War period.

EXPANSION OF TEMCO’S PLANT “A” FACILITIES In 1952, the Navy awarded TEMCO Figure 8-30. TEMCO’s subassembly work in Facility 1, Plant its first contract to manufacture a “A,” circa 1950–52. Source: NWIRP Dallas Facility Records. complete aircraft—McDonnell Aircraft Corporation—the F3H Demon, designed by (Barksdale 1958: 15). The company also won contracts for major subassembly work on the Boeing B-47 Stratojet, Lockheed P2V Neptune, Martin P5M Marlin, and the Convair B-36 aircraft that were used on the war front. TEMCO also reconditioned Douglas C54 aircraft for use in Korea (Figures 8-30 & 8-31). The Navy needed the carrier-based Demon and other products delivered on a timely basis, but TEMCO suffered a rising backlog due to inadequate facilities, and an expansion of the Plant “A” side of NIRAP Dallas seemed the only expedient remedy. During the Korean War, TEMCO did not enjoy the same financial position as Vought and thus could not afford to fund the construction of new facilities. The Department of the Navy had contributed more than $1.7 million to Vought’s Spring Building Program and, in an effort to be fair, offered the same amount to TEMCO for a 1956 Naval Facilities Expansion Program. Under this program, the Navy funded construction of two new buildings for TEMCO, Facilities 104 and 105, and an addition to TEMCO’s Facility 2 office building, which ultimately cost $2.2 million, at NIRAP Dallas (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1).

The Navy hired James Stewart & Company, the same firm that provided previous construction services during World War II and with both of Vought’s expansions at NIRAP Dallas, to construct a 58,000-square-foot addition to TEMCO’s Facility 2 office Figure 8-31. Finished aircraft on NIRAP Dallas property, east building. Ground was broken on the of Plant “A,” Facility 1. Circa 1952–53. Source: NWIRP Dallas Facility Records. $800,000 addition on 31 March 1953

PAGE 8-62 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN and completed on 1 December 1953 (TEMCO Tidings 17 April 1953: 1). TEMCO used the extra space to hire additional engineers and office staff to accommodate the company’s expanded workload (Figure 8-32).

Smith & Warder A/E and T. C. Bateson Construction Company, both of Dallas, provided the drawings and construction services for the TEMCO buildings in the 1956 Naval Facilities Figure 8-32. Aerial view of TEMCO’s Plant “A” buildings, Expansion Program. Construction on (Facilities 1 and 2), following the Korean War expansion project. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records. Facility 105, a paint stripping structure northeast of Plant “A,” Facility 1 and adjacent to Jefferson Boulevard, began in June 1955 and was completed in 1956. It cost the Navy $105,600 (TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1). The building provided TEMCO with an 8,048-square- foot subassembly area for refurbishing work on the Boeing B-47 Stratojet, Lockheed P2V Neptune, Martin P5M Marlin, and the Convair B-36 aircraft. TEMCO stripped the paint and cleaned aircraft in Facility 105 prior to painting in Facility 104, the largest and most expensive of the two buildings constructed in the naval expansion of TEMCO-leased property (Figure 8-33) (TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1). In July 1953, construction began on Facility 104, a paint hangar, but it was not completed until early 1956. The nearly 46,000- square-foot building cost the Navy $1.3 million and enabled TEMCO to move all its final production processes and paint functions on the Demon from Plant “A,” (Facility 1) into Facility 104 (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 2 July 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1).

Completion of Facility 104 also coincided with the company’s development of its first production jet aircraft at NIRAP Dallas. The TEMCO Model 51 originated in a 1947 design called the TE-1 Buckaroo, which failed to find buyers among the U.S. military or in the civilian market. TEMCO redesigned the Buckaroo as a lightweight primary jet trainer, called Figure 8-33. A TEMCO employee utilizing new painting operations in Facility 104. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant the Model 51, in the early 1950s. The Records.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-63 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Figure 8-34. The TT-1 Pinto in flight. Source: The Complete Encyclopedia of Aircraft.

company manufactured the prototype and later production models in Plant “A,” Facility 1 and used Facility 104 for all final production and painting related to the Model 51 (TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1). On 26 March 1956, the Model 51 prototype flew at nearby Hensley Field, NAS Dallas, in front of Navy officials, who ordered 14 production aircraft under the TT-1 designation. The Navy purchased the TT-1 to test the feasibility of using the jet aircraft for its primary training program (Donald 1997: 876). The company held a contest in which they allowed its employees to select the name of it first company-designed production jet. The winning name was the TT-1 Pinto (Figure IV-34) and, on 15 July 1957, actress Jayne Mansfield and her daughter came to NIRAP Dallas to christen the first Pinto to roll off the TEMCO production line (TEMCO Tidings 19 July 1957: 1).

When the T. C. Bateson Construction Company completed Facilities 104 and 105 in 1956, TEMCO’s manufacturing and office space was nearly double its original productive capacity, making the Plant “A” manufacturing facilities at NIRAP Dallas one of the best subcontracting production factories in the nation. The improved facilities enabled the company to win additional Demon contracts, one for the Pinto, and a multimillion dollar Republic F84F Thunderstreak jet fighter-bomber subassembly contract for the production of the airplane’s aft fuselage (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 16 July 1954: 1; TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955: 1; Donald 1997: 876). The Thunderstreak project alone required 1,200 employees in addition to the company’s existing 6,500 employees. This project, coupled with existing contracts on the

PAGE 8-64 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Demon, Pinto, and other subassemblies, forced TEMCO to hire even more workers (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 16 July 1954: 1). TEMCO’s Korean War hiring program raised the company employment levels to 7,893 in January 1953. Employment peaked in 1957, when more than 11,000 workers collected a weekly payroll of $728,000, or $60 million annually (TEMCO Tidings 19 November 1954: 1; Barksdale 1958: 16). TEMCO’s employees came from cities throughout North Texas: Grand Prairie, Arlington, Ft. Worth, Irving, Dallas, Denton, McKinney, Waxahachie, Kaufmann, Gunter, Corsicana, Lewisville, Lake Dallas, Mesquite, Roanoke, Commerce, Venus, Midlothian, Scurry, Ennis, Lancaster, Argyle, and Seagoville. Some came from as far as Eustace, in Henderson County (78 miles), Hillsboro, in Hill County (70 miles), and Blue Ridge, in Collin County (just under 70 miles) (TEMCO Tidings 18 April 1952: 1).

TEMCO’s production increase benefited the local economy as well as its employees. Earnings were spent largely in 181 North Texas cities and communities, with an estimated $11.7 million on food, beverages, and tobacco; $7.7 million on homes and household maintenance; $4.2 million on clothing and education; $3.4 million on automobiles; and $1.8 million on hobbies, movies, sports, and other forms of recreation (TEMCO Tidings 17 November 1955: 2). The company had 2,500 suppliers in over 40 states, nearly a third of this business came from 788 Texas-based companies earning $28.5 annually (Barksdale 1958: 16; TEMCO Tidings 1 April 1955: np; TEMCO Tidings 17 November 1955: 2). In addition to payroll and supplies, TEMCO spent nearly $340,000 in utilities, telephone service, telegrams, and postage stamps, and another $300,000 in freight expenses per year (TEMCO Tidings 17 November 1955: 2).

POST-KOREAN WAR PRODUCTION CONTINUES AT NIRAP DALLAS The end of war in Korea did not stop or slow defense spending and contracts for America’s aviation industries. Western democratic nations genuinely feared the spread of communism in Asia and its entrenchment in Eastern Europe, leading to increased production of nuclear weapons, vehicles to transport those weapons, and the creation of new and superior jet aircraft for Cold War combat and reconnaissance. The U.S. defense strategy focused on containing communism within the areas already affected—Soviet Union, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Czechoslovakia.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-65 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The rise in Cold War defense spending and contracts also signified a change in America’s aviation industry to an aerospace industry, as production shifted to the manufacture of jets, helicopters, guided and intercontinental supersonic missiles, aircraft for space travel, rockets, and satellites. The Department of the Navy Figure 8-35. The F8U Crusader. Source: The Complete Encyclopedia of Aircraft. recognized this transformation and responded by changing the name of its 26 aircraft-producing GOCO facilities from Naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Plants (NIRAP) to Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plants (NWIRP) in 1952 (D. Whitney Thornton to James F. Taylor 15 Nov 1971: 1). The new name accurately reflected the variety of products that the GOCOs manufactured during the Cold War period.

Vought began its transition from an aviation to an aerospace company in the late 1940s with the design of its Regulus missile and jets, but it was determined to keep up with the demand for new, more competitive and technologically superior products in the global fight against communism. The expanded facilities and personnel at NWIRP Dallas allowed Vought to begin research and development on a second generation of jet aircraft and missiles, products that moved the company to the forefront of the American aerospace industry. In the early 1950s, Vought began simultaneous development on the Regulus II guided missile and F8U Crusader at NWIRP Dallas.

In September 1952, the Department of the Navy selected a Vought proposal for a carrier-based supersonic air- superiority fighter from eight other competitors because of the company’s attention to the fighter’s low-speed characteristics. Vought spent nearly four years designing and developing the new all-weather F8U Crusader (Figure 8-35). The Navy ordered a Figure 8-36. Crusader jet aircraft outside Facility 15 and west of Hensley field at NAS Dallas. Source:NWIRP Dallas Plant prototype on 29 June 1953 and the Records. sleek, arrow-like fighter made its maiden flight at Edwards Air Force Base in California on 25 March 1955.

PAGE 8-66 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The Crusader cruised past Mach 1 with little difficulty (Jones 1977: 312). The 52-minute test flight at Edwards demonstrated to the Navy that the fighter had great potential and they ordered 318 production models. By 30 September 1955, after the first production model flew at Hensley Field in Dallas and subsequent test flights proceeded with few problems, the Navy ordered an additional 473 units worth $100 million (Figure 8-36). In May 1956, Vought received additional orders for the F8U Crusader, which, combined with earlier orders, totaled more than $275 million (Jones 1977: 312, 314; Chance Vought News December 1955: 1). Ultimately, Vought produced 1,261 Crusaders for the U.S. Navy and 42 for France at NWIRP Dallas (Donald 1997: 900; Wagner 1968: 423; Jones 1977: 314).

The Crusader appealed to the Navy in many ways. It had a high rate of climb due to its Pratt & Whitney J57-P-4A engine, which offered 16,200-pounds. of thrust. It carried four 20-mm cannons, two Sidewinders in its fuselage sides, and thirty-two 2.75 inch missiles. Furthermore, the Crusader had an exceptional combat ceiling, could penetrate the speed of sound in level flight, and be refueled in mid-air. Vought designed the F8U for faster-than-sound operation from both land and aircraft carriers, further improving the Navy’s capability to control the air and seas (Jones 1977: 312; Wagner 1968: 423; Chance Vought News December 1955: 1). The Crusader joined U.S. Navy Squadron VF-32 in 1957 and remained in service until the late 1980s (Donald 1997: 900; Green & Swanborough 1981: 203; Wagner 1968: 423).

The Crusader won Vought a great deal of attention and praise in its first two years of production. An F8U-1 Crusader, flown by Commander R. W. Windsor, set a national speed record at 1,015 mph in August 1956, only months after production began (Wagner 1968: 423; Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: np). On the basis of Figure 8-37. John H. Glenn in his record-setting F80-IP Crusader on July 17, 1957. Source: Chance Vought News. this outstanding record, Vought won the prestigious Thompson Trophy for speed, and later that year, the company received the Collier Trophy for the Crusader’s design and development. The Bureau of Aeronautics awarded its first-ever Certificate of Merit to Vought for the Crusader in the same year (Jones 1977: 312). Finally, the Crusader set the transcontinental speed record for a single-engine aircraft, a record that still stands. Marine Major John H. Glenn

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-67 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

accomplished this feat on 17 July 1957, when he flew an F8U-1P Crusader from Los Angles to New York at 725.55 mph and 35,000 feet, with three in-air refuelings (Figure 8-37) (Wagner 1968: 423; Vought Vanguard 17 July 1957: 1, 3).

The Crusader’s success led Vought to further evolve the design to produce the F8U-3 Crusader III, a new aircraft that physically resembled its predecessor but performed differently. The Navy ordered three prototypes of the Crusader III to enter into competition against the McDonnell Phantom II in 1958. On 11 June, the Crusader III made its first supersonic run, an in an August flight, the jet reached Mach 2, climbing 60,000 feet at a 300 angle. The plane peaked at nearly 76,000 feet before the engined stalled and pilot John Konrad glided the Crusader III to a dead -stick landing at Edwards Air Force Base (Jones 1977: 314, 317). The Navy ordered 15 production F8U-3s after the August flight, but the engine stall problem persisted. Ultimately, the Phantom II outperformed and was more durable than the Crusader III, and Vought produced only 3 of the 15 models ordered. Those three were later relegated to NASA for high speed research (Jones 1977: 317).

At the height of the Crusader program in 1956, Vought began testing the Regulus II prototype at Hensley Field, even though the Navy had placed a $14 million order for continued production on the Regulus I missiles just months before (Chance Vought News February 1956: 1). Vought did not intend to wait until the Regulus I was obsolete before it offered the second version of the guided missile to the Navy. Confident of the product and its ability to sell, the company began immediate production on the Regulus II following the successful May flight tests (Figure 8-38). Production occurred in four buildings: Plant “B,” Facility 6; the Structures Lab, Facility 94; the Test Cell

Figure 8-38. Regulus II. Source: Regulus The Forgotten Weapon by David K. Stumpf.

PAGE 8-68 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Laboratory, Facility 95; and the Final Production Missile Hangar, Facility 97.

Vought’s gamble paid off when the Navy placed a $12 million order for production of 59 of the Regulus II in July 1956 (Chance Vought News July 1956: 1; Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: np). The Regulus II was as versatile and affordable as its predecessor, but was capable of a much higher level of performance. Production Regulus II missiles came equipped with a J-79 jet engine that reached speeds of Mach 2 and a ceiling of 60,000 feet. Like the first version, the Regulus II could be launched from submarines, ships, and land bases, and was also recoverable after flight because of its wheeled landing gear (Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: np). During the testing of the Regulus II, the Navy used each of their 59 production missiles 6 to 18 times before being retired. No other guided missile in the Navy’s history and arsenal had ever lived as long or performed as well in a testing environment as the Regulus II (Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: 6).

The Department of the Navy was so impressed with the performance of both the Regulus I and II that Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Arleigh Burke referred to Vought’s guided missiles as the “harbingers of the Navy of the future” (Chance Vought News December 1956: 1). Following this proclamation, the Department of the Navy placed a $26 million production order for both the Regulus I and II guided missiles. With this order and contracts on the Crusader, Vought’s backlog soared to over $500 million (Chance Vought News December 1956: 1). In addition, the Navy ordered a nuclear submarine, The Halibut, designed and constructed specifically to launch the Regulus II Missile (Vought Vanguard 8 November 1957: 6). The Regulus II proved to be such a prolific and innovative missile that the Smithsonian Institute selected it for an exhibit of historic aerospace regalia that included the original Wright Brothers’ airplane and other pioneering rockets, missiles, and aircraft (LTV News 17 June 1966: np).

In May 1959, Vought continued its foray into the aerospace industry by winning a $1 million NASA contract for both the manufacture and assembly of the Scout research rocket. NASA developed and supplied the instrument payload, engines, stage separation devices, jet vanes, and fin assemblies, while Vought developed the nose section, airframe, and constructed a launching platform. NASA shipped the assemblies via road rail to Facility 6, Plant “B” from other manufacturers, and Vought produced its pieces and assembled

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-69 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

the complete 70-foot, 35,000-pound, four-stage solid rocket at NWIRP Dallas (Vought Vanguard 1 May 1959: 1). Vought built the three-piece Scout rocket launcher in jigs located in Facility 94’s structural test lab. The 109-foot steel tower was assembled, erected, and painted, just west of the Facility 6, Plant “B” manufacturing building in August 1959. After Vought and NASA employees checked and qualified the launcher, it was taken down, loaded on railroad cars, and transported, along with the Scout rockets, to Wallops Island, Virginia, where the missile was fired (Vought Vanguard 21 August 1959: 1).

CONFLICT DEVELOPS AT NWIRP DALLAS AS TEMCO MERGES WITH VOUGHT Between 1948 and 1959, Chance Vought leased three-fifths of NWIRP Dallas and used its Plant “B” facilities to develop and produce stages of the Regulus I and II guided missiles, Scout missile, Corsair, Pirate, Cutlass, Crusader, and Crusader III aircraft. During the same period, TEMCO used its Plant “A” facilities to produce airframe sections and engine assemblies for prime contractors such as Douglas, Lockheed, McDonnell, Boeing, and Pratt & Whitney, and worked as a prime contractor on the production of the TT-1 Pinto trainer aircraft and development of the Corvus missile (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 7; Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 nd: 1). Vought and TEMCO's peaceful coexistence became tenuous as both businesses grew. The Navy received complaints about the joint tenancy issue from both its NWIRP Dallas lessees as early as 1950. The fence installed between the Plant “A” and Plant “B” properties was not sufficient to prevent tension.

Vought and TEMCO's main problem at NWIRP Dallas stemmed from the fact that the lessees had inadvertently become competitors for naval contracts and within the aerospace industry as a whole. In addition, TEMCO's presence prevented Vought from expanding its own facilities in a national emergency (Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 nd: 1, 4). TEMCO's continual growth and request to further expand its facilities angered Vought management, and the situation was discussed extensively in NAVPRO reports to the Department of the Navy during this period (Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 1958: np; Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 nd: 1, 4).

PAGE 8-70 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Vought tolerated the situation and did not pressure the Navy to change the joint tenancy arrangement until 1960, when TEMCO merged with Ling-Altec Electronics to form Ling-TEMCO Electronics and Missile Company (Bilstein & Miller 1985: 137; Brown 1972: 75; Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 1958: np). Immediately following the merger, the Department of the Navy cancelled TEMCO's newly awarded $400 million Corvus Missile contract. The reasons for the Navy's decision are unclear, but following the cancellations, TEMCO's new president, James Ling, announced his plans to expand TEMCO's position in the aerospace industry and take over Vought (Brown 1972: 80–81).

Early in 1960, Ling and his business associate, John Coughenour, began to buy up Chance Vought stock in an effort to legitimize their position within the aerospace industry and the Dallas business community. Chance Vought Aircraft enjoyed a stellar reputation in the aerospace industry and with the Navy. The combined company would assume Vought's established relationship with local banks and wield greater power as one of North Texas' largest employers (Brown 1972: 82). In October 1960, Ling called a meeting of the TEMCO board to obtain official approval for the acquisition of Vought stocks and a commitment of $10 million of the company's funds to purchase them (Brown 1972: 85).

In the short year that James Ling owned TEMCO, he managed to increase sales to $148.4 million, winning the company the #285 spot among the Fortune 500. In the same period, Ling acquired more than 10% of Vought stock, which legally required him to notify Vought management of his intentions to take over the company (Brown 1972: 85). In January 1961, Vought's board of directors refused to consider a merger with TEMCO and launched a publicity campaign that vilified Ling and his activities, calling him "an uncouth predator making raids on the innocent" (Brown 1972: 77, 87; Dallas Morning News 9 August 1962: np). As word of Ling's takeover plans spread throughout the Dallas financial community, ferocious local opposition began to form. "The Ling-TEMCO merger was friendly, and most Dallasites felt Ling had not overreached himself, but Chance Vought was another matter all together; therefore his battle to acquire Vought split the town and created acrimony that would not subside for years and earn Ling a reputation as dangerous and untrustworthy" (Brown 1972: 84).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-71 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Despite the personal attacks and bitter resentment among Vought employees and local business leaders, Ling was able to acquire 40% of Vought stock by March 1961, making him the majority shareholder and capable of calling a special vote on the proposed Ling-TEMCO Vought merger (Brown 1972: 87). Vought management, including President Frederick O. Deitweiler, responded to Ling's vote by resigning in protest and disgust. The remaining leadership worked hard to prevent a vote, even requesting help from its Washington, Figure 8-39. LTV offices, Facility 2, following the merger in DC, connections, but ultimately, on 9 1962. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records. June 1961, the shareholders were issued proxy statements to vote on the Vought-TEMCO merger (Dallas Morning News 9 August 1962: np; Brown 1972: 87; Vought Vanguard 9 June 1961: 1). Stockholders issued the results of the proxy vote on 30 June 1961 and Ling-Temco Vought (LTV) was officially formed. The combined company now employed more than 20,000 people and had assets of $195 million, a backlog of $305 million in orders, and encompassed activities in the fields of aerospace, communications and test systems, commercial and industrial products, sound systems, aerosystems, and information handling systems (Figure 8-39) (Vought Vanguard 9 June 1961: 1; Vought Vanguard 30 June 1961: 1–2).

LTV TRIES TO PURCHASE NWIRP DALLAS Immediately following the merger, James Ling, the new president of LTV, met with NWIRP Dallas's NAVPRO representative to lay out the company's new business philosophy. Ling's long-term goal for LTV was diversification from Navy projects into commercial ventures, or achieve some sort of balance between the two interests. Ling articulated his strategy to NAVPRO representatives, which was later recounted in NWIRP Dallas official reports:

The corporation's mission is to conceive, design, manufacture, assemble, and test products for agencies of the Department of Defense, other branches of the government and other aerospace contractors. These aerospace products primarily consist of complete aircraft and missile weapon systems, major subassemblies of commercial transports, space launch systems, airport transit systems and numerous research and development

PAGE 8-72 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

projects. (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 2)

Ling also wanted to move the company away from manufacturing line and quantity production into limited and specialized manufacturing activities. The new philosophy also stressed increased research and design of new products for both the military and commercial sectors (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np).

NAVPRO notes from the meeting indicate that the Navy's representative communicated Ling's new goals to the Department of the Navy, which was displeased not only by the merger between Vought and TEMCO but also by the change in the company's business philosophy. The Navy had considered both Vought and TEMCO highly qualified contractors, but after the merger, its opinion of LTV was uncertain (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np). Until this time, the Navy had chosen tenants for its GOCOs who were their prime contractors or who worked exclusively in military production. Despite the Navy's attitude toward LTV, it could not evict the company from NWIRP Dallas because of a preexisting lease with Vought (Lease No. N0w6137u), executed in 1958 and valid through 1971 (Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np). As Vought's new owner, LTV became the beneficiary of the lease that covered all the land and buildings at NWIRP Dallas, including approximately 309 acres of land and 3.1 million square feet of manufacturing space; therefore, the Navy was contractually obligated to retain LTV as tenant through 1971 (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np).

NAVPRO apparently informed LTV of the Navy's ambiguity toward the company's business philosophy; LTV responded by offering to purchase NWIRP Dallas. NAVPRO arranged a meeting between James Ling and representatives of the Navy's Utilization and Disposal Services in August 1961 (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np). At the meeting, Ling attempted to persuade the Navy that it should sell NWIRP Dallas at a "bargain price," or below fair market value, due to the number of contractor-funded leasehold improvements, which dated to the 1947–49 expansion and included all subsequent construction and maintenance. Records of the meeting clearly indicate that Ling's arguments were unpersuasive and in fact offended the representatives of the Utilization and Disposal Services, who

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-73 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

informed LTV that even if the sale was authorized, it would be at fair market value and brokered by the General Service Administration (GSA) under section 203(e) (3) (G) of the Federal Property and Administrative Service Act of 1949 (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np). The GSA served as the agency responsible for federally owned property sales and transfers.

On 11 September 1961, a month after the meeting, the Navy informed LTV management that the DOD would include a national security clause in any bill of sale that required LTV to maintain the plant according to existing naval GOCO standards for a period of time stipulated by the Navy rather than DOD. Other stipulations prohibited LTV from making any major alterations to NWIRP Dallas for 10 years, and included provisions for periodic and surprise inspections by NAVPRO representatives. In addition, LTV was required to give priority status to all DOD contracts (Environmental Statement for the Disposal of the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas 19 June 1971: 3; Restriction Covering Sale of NWIRP, Dallas nd: Attachment A; J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np). The DOD requirements reflected the Navy's assessment of NWIRP Dallas as the most complete manufacturing plant in its GOCO program and possibly the nation. NWIRP Dallas was different from most Navy- owned GOCO facilities because of the plant's capablility to produce a variety of military-related products rather than a few specialized services (Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DOD-387 1958: 2; Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np). The Navy was clearly cautious about selling such a valuable resource, and explained its concerns to LTV at its initial meeting and during subsequent communications (J. E. Moody to Commissioner of Utilization and Disposal Services 18 August 1961: np).

Another indication of the Navy's apprehension about selling NWIRP Dallas is revealed in the length of time that the Utilization and Disposal Services took in sending LTV's request to purchase the facility to GSA. It was not until 1970, close to a decade after the initial meetings, that GSA informed LTV of its appraisal; NWIRP Dallas was worth $68,748,321.00, but the government would sell the complex for $31,946,000 (General Services Administration 14 April 1972: 2; Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np; Curtis A. Roos to GSA 30 October 1970: np). The GSA based this figure on the sale of other GOCOs to contractors, specifically the sale of Air Force Plant

PAGE 8-74 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

#14 at Burbank, California, to the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, which bought the plant at 25%–50% of its fair market price. The GSA's offer to LTV allowed the Department of the Navy a return of 68.4% on its investment since 1947 (General Services Administration 14 April 1972: 1; Paul T. Flynn to GSA 15 October 1971: 1–2).

The GSA's 1970 appraisal of NWIRP Dallas's land, facilities, equipment, machines, and tools was more than double LTV's assessment, which took into account depreciation costs, leasehold improvements, and other contractor investments (Paul T. Flynn to GSA 15 October 1971: 2). LTV was extremely agitated by the delay and the appraisal, and responded to GSA:

LTV has spent considerable effort and money obtaining independent outside appraisals on the subject facility. Age and obsolescence of buildings and equipment, need for modernization of water and waste disposal facilities, and the current depressed conditions of the aerospace industry are major factors influencing the Contractor's evaluation of the NWIRP. (C. J. Brenner to Commander, Naval Air Systems Command 8 March 1972: 1)

In anger, LTV demanded that its purchase of NWIRP Dallas be contingent on the company's continued use of NAS Dallas's Hensley Field runways to test its products. The company also wanted the Navy to fund a water treatment facility and clean up a hazardous waste spill that had contaminated Mountain Creek Lake (General Services Administration 14 April 1972: 1–2). The Texas Water Quality Board, responding to complaints from Dallas County citizens, discovered the spill, informed the Navy, and required LTV to clean up the area to the State's satisfaction. LTV wanted to defer the $4.54 million treatment facility and $2.6 million cleanup costs to the Navy in an effort to offset the high GSA purchase price, but the Navy refused to pay for either (Robert P. Selm, P. E. to E. A. Tharpe II, ASA 22 August 1970: np; C. L. Turner to Commander, Naval Air Systems Command 3 August 1971: np; A. H. Clancy, Jr., to LTV Aerospace Corporation, Vought Aeronautics Division 23 April 1971: np). The Navy also told LTV that it could not guarantee the use of Hensley Field ,because the airfield was owned by the City of Dallas, not the federal government; LTV would have to negotiate with the City to resolve that issue (C. L. Turner to Commander, Naval Air Systems Command 3 August 1971: np; Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-75 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

On 11 February 1972, LTV informed the Navy and GSA that the company was no longer interested in purchasing NWIRP Dallas. LTV based its decision on the GSA $31 million purchase price, the Navy's refusal to pay for a treatment facility or to cleanup Mountain Creek Lake, money difficulties, and DOD restrictions on plant operations. Furthermore, the City of Dallas refused LTV's request for continued use of Hensley Field because the airfield was restricted to DOD use only (General Service Administration 14 April 1972: 2). In reality, rising Cold War tensions and the conflict brewing in Vietnam

Table 8-9.

PAGE 8-76 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

over the spread of communism were the primary factors that complicated and delayed the plant's sale, rather than animosity between LTV, the Navy, GSA, and DOD.

THE VIETNAM PERIOD, 1965–1975 Conflict over control of Vietnam raged for almost two decades, beginning in 1954, when the country was split in half along political lines. Like Korea in 1945, Vietnam was divided at the 17th parallel into North Vietnam, a communist government supported by the Soviet Union, and South Vietnam, with a Republican government backed by the French and other democratic, Western nations. Not long after the partition, the U.S. military assumed the job of training the South Vietnamese army to defend itself against the North and its guerillas, known as the Viet Cong. The goal of the Viet Cong was to disrupt South Vietnam's social, political, and economic improvement programs through violence, including the assassination of political leaders and attacks on industrial facilities, farms, military bases, and small, rural villages. The Viet Cong's objective of spreading communism through force was done covertly, sporadically, and gradually.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy received a report on the Viet Cong from his military advisor, General Maxwell D. Taylor, which detailed the North's infiltration of South Vietnam. The President's advisors informed Kennedy that more equipment was needed for the South Vietnamese army to repel the Viet Cong. By 1963, the United States had spent $400 million dollars on military aid and had sent more than 16,000 military advisors to Vietnam to assess the best strategy to combat the rebels. On 2 and 4 August 1964, the USS Maddox, a destroyer cruising in the Gulf of Tonkin, was attacked by the Viet Cong patrol boats. The Maddox returned fire after the second attack, sinking the North Vietnamese boats. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered air attacks in retaliation for the hostile actions, and the North Vietnamese responded with terrorist attacks on American installations in the South.

As a result of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the U.S. military devoted its full attention to South Vietnam and, by June 1965, American troops were engaged in combat with the Viet Cong. The initial U.S. presence numbered 50,000 troops and reached 500,000 by early 1968. Defense spending soared as America's military commitment in Vietnam increased. Aerospace companies, like LTV, became the beneficiaries of increased contracts. It was during these early stages of the Vietnam conflict that LTV attempted to purchase NWIRP

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-77 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Dallas. Despite its heated negotiations for the plant, LTV continued production on its jets, missiles, rockets, and on new products for the Army and NASA (Table 8-9).

LTV BEGINS PRODUCTION FOR VIETNAM WAR From 1964 to 1974, when the United States was actively involved in the Vietnam conflict, the military ordered nearly 30,000 jet aircraft and helicopters from the nation's aerospace industries (The Aerospace Industry 1997: np). The Crusader was LTV's first jet aircraft to receive a production order for use in Vietnam. The Navy placed a $48 million order for the F8 Crusader in 1962 and an additional order worth $175 million for the remanufacture 446 of the fighters as photo planes in 1966 ("Manufacturing Technology Contracts" 3 October 1986: np; LTV News 7 September 1962: 1). The Crusader's combat effectiveness was tested and proved during the conflict in head-to-head battle against the Russian MiG-17 and MiG-21 jet aircraft. Its rugged construction made the Crusader a formidable weapon against the MiG, responsible for downing 17 MiG-17s and 4 MiG-21s (Jones 1977: 314).

The A-7 Corsair II, a new jet created by company engineers during the Vietnam period, was the most heavily ordered LTV jet aircraft. The Corsair II was of similar configuration as the Crusader but incorporated different structural assemblies. The Navy ordered three A-7 prototypes on 19 March 1964, with the first flying at Hensley Field on 27 September 1965, almost four weeks ahead of schedule (Donald 1997: 899). Pleased with the Corsair II's performance, the Navy selected the jet to replace many of its outdated Douglas A-4 Skyhawks already in service (Figure 8-40). In November 1966, the Navy awarded LTV a $32 million contract for 16 of the light attack bomber, each of which cost approximately $2 million. The Corsair II entered service with U.S. Navy Squadron VA-147 on 1 February 1967 (Figure 8-41)(Donald1997:899;http:// www.wpafb.af.mil/ museum/modern_flight; Dallas Morning News 18 November 1966: np). Vice Admiral William F. Bringlt, Commander of the Seventh Fleet, declared the Corsair II the "workhorse" of the Navy's operations in North Vietnam because of the fighter’s all-weather capabilities (LTV News 5 January 1967: 1, 4). The Corsair II served in 27 different squadrons in Vietnam, flying more than 90,000 combat missions (Donald 1997: 899). During the war period, LTV produced 866 Corsair II for combat use (LTV Profile 22 July 1971: 3).

PAGE 8-78 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

In addition to jet aircraft orders, LTV provided other services to the Navy. On 6 March 1965, LTV updated the electrical systems of two long-range instrumentation ships, the USS Huntsville and the USNS Watertown. The Navy's Bureau of Ships awarded LTV the $21,925,774 contract for the modification, renovation, and repair of the ships, which were originally slotted for communications use in Vietnam, but later reassigned to NASA Figure 8-40. A-7A aircraft aboard USS America. Source: LTV for use in the Apollo Space Program. Aerospace Corporation. NASA used the USS Huntsville and the USNS Watertown to monitor and track the Apollo spacecraft as they re-entered the Earth's atmosphere (Dallas Morning News 5 March 1965: np). NWIRP Dallas manufactured the electrical systems, but the installation occurred at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida (Dallas Morning News 30 March 1968: np).

Following the merger of TEMCO with Vought, LTV began producing for other military branches and for NASA. In 1962, just prior to the Vietnam buildup, LTV researched and developed a space pack called the SMU (self-maneuvering unit), which enabled astronauts to assemble vehicles and transfer goods from one Figure 8-41. The A-7 Corsair II. ship to another in space (Dallas Times Source:http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight Herald 13 August 1962: np). The company's successful work on the SMU led to a contract for the design and manufacture of a manned space flight simulator at NWIRP Dallas. The simulator was "a maneuvering, ground-based device which can simulate numerous phases of space missions including launch, orbit, rendezvous, earth and lunar landings, and many others." Eight of NASA's astronauts for the Apollo Space Mission trained on the manned space flight simulator at NWIRP Dallas in May 1963 (LTV News 17 May 1963: 1).

Also in 1963, LTV received an $10,687,500 extension to the existing Scout missile production program for 23 additional launch vehicles, a program that Vought began with NASA in May 1959. NASA used Scout missiles to launch satellites into the Earth's orbit (LTV News

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-79 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

17 May 1963: 1). NASA again extended the Scout missile program and LTV's role in its production on 30 August 1965. The $9.2 million award required the company to manage the entire program on a trial basis that lasted 16 months, from 1 July to 31 October 1966. LTV's responsibilities included assembling the Scout, testing, and launching, as well as mission planning and evaluation of the field data (Dallas Times Herald 30 August 1965: np). LTV's performance as manager of the Scout program earned the company prime contractor status and two additional Scout missile contracts worth nearly $14 million, in June 1972. As prime contractor, LTV was responsible for both the Scout launch vehicles and its motors. NASA's order called for the delivery of 15 units at the rate of 1 per month beginning in November 1973 and ending in February 1975 (LTV Profile June 1972: 1). Between 1962 and 1970, LTV's earnings of $44,445,000 on NASA contracts placed the company 12th among 100 contractors providing products or performing services for the space agency (LTV Profile February 1970: 2).

During the Vietnam period, LTV also performed work for the Army, which awarded it a $79.4 million contract for the Lance Missile, a weapon designed for use in a general or limited war and capable of combat operations in all types of weather and terrain. The Lance Missile System protected advancing ground forces in the field and also carried the Army's nuclear fire support (LTV News 7 June 1963: 1). LTV's second Army contract was for the XM561 one-quarter ton cargo truck worth $2.5 million. Both the Lance Missile System and XM561 were developed at NWIRP Dallas in LTV's engineering buildings, but neither was manufactured at Dallas owing to the lack of adequate facilities as well as final production commitments on jet aircraft and NASA products. LTV manufactured the Lance Missile System and XM561 at the Warren Ordnance Plant in Detroit, Michigan, an Army-owned GOCO facility (LTV News 21 December 1962: 1).

LTV EXPANDS NWIRP DALLAS TO MEET ITS PRODUCTION DEMAND From 1965–75, LTV sales to the Navy, Army, and NASA topped $3.75 billion, and the company's production efforts for the DOD, combined with an ambitious commercial program, strained NWIRP Dallas facilities (Brown 1972: 26). The overcrowding forced LTV to transfer manufacturing on its Army contracts to Detroit, so the company sought to expand of its existing facilities in order to accommodate its wartime and commercial production. In October 1966, LTV began a $21 million facility and equipment modernization program, of which the Navy contributed $4 million (Table IV-10).

PAGE 8-80 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The modernization program's goal was to keep LTV competitive, efficient, and able to meet the company's overwhelming military and commercial orders (LTV News 7 October 1966: 3).

Although no major construction occurred at Plant “B,” Facility 6 as part of the expansion, the factory's high bay area received the bulk of the funds for equipment modernization or replacement (LTV News 7 October 1966: 3). The company spent most of its expansion funds on the construction of 15 new buildings, additions to Facilities 76, 110, 128, and 197, and the installation of a new parking area that provided 1,000 additional parking spaces (LTV Profile February 1969: 1).

The Facility 76 addition included a 50,000-square-foot avionics lab, an acceptance test lab for government and contractor-furnished equipment, and a repair center for aircraft computers, radar, and gyros. An addition to Facility 197, an acoustics and fuel systems test lab, provided expanded space for testing of vibration problems in advanced, supersonic jet aircraft. LTV's improvement to the Fuel Calibration Lab, Facility 110, doubled the company's capacity for testing aircraft fueling systems, a job generally performed by the Navy at other GOCOs (LTV Profile February 1969: 1).

Table 8-10.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-81 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Facility 194, an office and engineering building, was the first new building constructed as part of the Vietnam Expansion Program. The 100,000-square-foot facility supported the A-7 Corsair II production program. (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 1). Architect Dale Y. Foster and Leo L. Landauers & Associates supplied the architectural drawings, and an unknown firm built Facility 194 at a total cost of $1,320,480. In a 1974 NAVPRO report, Facility 194 is listed as one of the most significant construction projects undertaken by LTV at NWIRP Dallas (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 8).

LTV undertook construction of several different facilities and areas of NWIRP Dallas in 1967. Construction activities included the installation of a 250,000-square-foot concrete ramp area extending from the production lines at Facilities 1 and 6 to Hensley Field and storage facilities, or Line Shelters, scattered across the eastern portion of NWIRP Dallas. LTV requested this project on 9 January 1967, and received approval on 23 June 1967 (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 2). The new concrete ramp expanded airport operations and capabilities at NWIRP Dallas for LTV's commercial and military programs, specifically the A-7 Corsair II, Crusader, Boeing 747, and McDonnell-Douglas DC-10. The ramp's construction cost $940,977.00.

Part of the Vietnam Expansion included the installation of eight prefabricated, metal Engine Run-Up Line Shelters—Facilities 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 211, 212, and 213—in the eastern portion of NWIRP Dallas (Figure 8-42). The Navy approved the shelters on 19 April 1967 (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 1). Engine Run-Up Line Shelters provided space to store, inspect ,and test individual jet aircraft prior to flight testing at Hensley Field. Once a jet was manufactured in Facilities 1 and 6, LTV employees moved the aircraft down the newly Figure 8-42. Line shelters constructed in the eastern portion of NWIRP Dallas during the Vietnam War. Source: NWIRP installed concrete ramp to a Line Dallas Plant Records. Shelter, where it was tested and then

PAGE 8-82 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN moved through Gate 48 or Gate 49 to Hensley Field at NAS Dallas. Each unit provided 3,300 square feet of space and at a combined cost of $94,357 (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 1).

The two remaining buildings constructed in 1967 were small support buildings. The first, Facility 219, a raw materials warehouse, was used to store aluminum, steel, wood, and other production goods. The 60,594-square- foot warehouse cost LTV nearly $500,000. Located in the southwest portion of NWIRP Dallas and away from manufacturing centers, Facility 219 was accessible to Crusader Drive, which was used to transport the raw materials to the appropriate production facility. The second building, Facility 195, a cooling tower, cost $45,000 and supported expanded air conditioning needs in the newly constructed buildings.

Three LTV-funded buildings were added at NWIRP Dallas in 1968, the largest of which was Facility 198, a machining center. LTV requested the new facility on 3 May 1967, which was approved later that month. The 205,658-square-foot building cost $3.6 million and provided LTV with a variety of manufacturing support functions, both commercial and military (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 1). With LTV's expanded manufacturing program, the company needed a large and modern machining center to make, shape, and forge specific parts for jet aircraft, missiles, rockets, and commercial airliners. Both large and small parts, made of metals and alloys, were machined through heat, pressure, and chemical processes on large presses and dies in Facility 198.

The remaining two 1968 buildings, Facilities 222 and 223, were completed within two months of each other. Facility 222, a 9,311- square-foot paint preparation area, served the company's commercial and military production programs, specifically the A-7 Corsair II, Boeing 747, and McDonnell-Douglas DC-10. LTV used Facility 223 to store ammunition magazines for installation on the Crusader, Crusader III, and Corsair II. Because of its strict military application, the Navy—rather than LTV—funded the 1,250-square-foot facility at a cost of $50,000 (Table IV-11) (Leasehold Improvements Over $25,000 11 April 1974: 2; LTV Profile February 1969: 1).

The last building constructed as part of the Vietnam Expansion was Facility 220, an office building located immediately south of Facility 194, in the westernmost portion of NWIRP Dallas. The three-story, 155,526- square-foot office building cost LTV over $3 million dollars

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-83 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

and housed materials and computer systems related to the A-7 Corsair II program. The Navy approved construction of Facility 220 on 29 May 1968, and LTV hired Dale M. Mills, a Dallas architect- engineer, to supply the architectural drawings. Facility 220 was completed in 1969.

In March 1968, Texas Governor John Connally awarded LTV the Governor's Industrial Expansion Award on the basis of the company's Vietnam Expansion Program and its effects on the total economic growth of North Texas. The Dallas and Grand Prairie Chambers of Commerce nominated LTV for the prestigious award because the expansion afforded North Texas residents increased employment opportunities, which in turn heightened local expenditures and capital investments (LTV News 15 March 1968: 1). During the Vietnam period, employment at NWIRP Dallas soared to 25,000, a figure approaching World Figure 8-43. The city of Grand Prairie during the 1970s. War II employment levels. Even so, Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records. the Navy estimated that LTV was understaffed by nearly 10,000 employees (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5).

The growth of NWIRP Dallas also coincided with the growth of the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex (Figure 8-43). By 1974, the overall population of the Metroplex reached 2.5 million, with the City of Dallas representing 894,000 and Grand Prairie 63,000 residents—a considerable jump from the nearly 400,000-Dallas County population figure in 1940, when NWIRP Dallas was built (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 9; Bilstein & Miller 1985: 94). Since the plant's initial opening, the Metroplex had grown into the transportation hub of the Southwest, serviced by the Dallas-Ft. Worth Regional Airport, major interstate highways, and numerous freight lines (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 11). Grand Prairie Chamber of Commerce officials credited NWIRP Dallas, the Navy, and the facility contractor with bolstering the suburb's economy, spurring development and growth, and providing North Texas residents with expanded employment

PAGE 8-84 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Table 8-11. opportunities. Randle Lee, vice-president of commercial development for the Chamber of Commerce, compared the impact of the aircraft industry in North Texas to that of oil in West Texas (Dallas Morning News 9 August 1987).

LTV OPERATIONS IN POST-VIETNAM TO 1992 Following the end of the Vietnam War in the mid-1970s and the reduction of military-related contracts, LTV was forced to layoff over half its work force. With the Cold War period coming to a close, the company relied more on commercial contracts and orders from foreign nations to keep its business afloat. Consequently, LTV had no funds to purchase NWIRP Dallas, and this factor, combined with restrictions placed on the sale, forced the company to abandon its plan to buy the complex. The Navy subsequently declared NWIRP

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-85 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Dallas a surplus property, but little buyer interest and the nation's depressed economic conditions forced it to reconsider divestiture. Furthermore, the Navy argued that as long as LTV devoted a substantial percentage of its production activities to DOD- or NASA- related contracts, the company could continue to lease NWIRP Dallas. With few viable alternatives, the Navy renewed LTV's lease, No. N0w6137u, ensuring that NWIRP Dallas was preserved for future mobilization emergencies (Special Disposal Plan 1 April 1971: np; Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 1).

Since the major Vietnam Expansion of 1966–69, LTV has made no major leasehold improvements at NWIRP Dallas except for routine maintenance and the cleanup of Mountain Creek Lake. As a condition of the lease renewal, LTV was required to install a new water treatment plant according to the specifications of the Texas Water Quality Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1974, LTV constructed an Industrial Waste Treatment Plant and Collection System in the westernmost portion of the plant at a cost of $2,851,300. The company also connected the NWIRP Dallas water storage tanks to the City of Dallas water main, providing quality drinking water to employees for the first time in almost a decade. Finally, the last maintenance requirement at NWIRP Dallas was the replacement of the World War II-era cooling tower, Facility 129, at a cost of nearly $2.6 million (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 16).

The worldwide recession of the early 1980s and the expense of required facilities maintenance rendered LTV financially vulnerable. The company was able to keep its doors open through its subcontracting work and continued production of its famed Corsair II jet aircraft. The Corsair II sustained LTV throughout the late 1970s and 1980s. Both the Navy and Air Force placed orders with LTV for the jet, but the DOD purchased aircraft modification kits and other maintenance supplies rather than complete production models. The 42 new production Corsair II jets manufactured at NWIRP Dallas in this period were ordered by the French military, with additional units requisitioned by the Greek and Portuguese air forces in the late 1980s (Donald 1997: 899–900). The Corsair II was a superiorly designed jet, and its performance and limited maintenance requirements allowed the aircraft to remain in active service throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The U.S. Navy deployed the Corsair II in combat during the Desert Storm conflict. In 1993, the last version of the Corsair II, in service with the U.S. Air National Guard, was retired (Donald 1997: 899). NATO countries still fly models of the Corsair II today.

PAGE 8-86 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The Corsair II and subcontracting work fueled LTV's survival in the lean and often cyclical aerospace environment of the 1980s. In 1981, LTV won its largest contract ever, a $1.3 billion subcontract from Rockwell International Corporation, a California-based company, to build the aft fuselage of the B1B Stealth Bomber (Dallas Morning News 9 August 1987). The Stealth contract, a subcontracting job for the U.S. Air Force C-17 Cargo plane, and commercial work for Boeing sustained and allowed LTV to rehire many employees who had lost their jobs in the declining aircraft market following the Vietnam War. By the late 1980s, LTV employment rebounded to 15,800 persons, with an annual payroll of $211.3 million. Throughout the late 1980s and to the present, no complete jet aircraft or commercial product has been manufactured at NWIRP Dallas (Dallas Morning News 9 August 1987).

PRODUCTION AT NWIRP DALLAS FROM 1992 TO THE PRESENT In 1992, Northrop Grumman, a prestigious Southern California-based company, purchased LTV and became the new tenant of NWIRP Dallas. A leader in Stealth technology, Northrop Grumman purchased LTV because of its decade-long experience manufacturing pieces of the Stealth Bomber. Northrop Grumman valued LTV's expertise and wanted NWIRP Dallas employees to work on the company's burgeoning Stealth Fighter program. Northrop Grumman also used

Figure 8-44. Aerial view of NWIRP Dallas, 1991. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-87 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NWIRP Dallas to refurbish its Gulf Stream aircraft, but has never manufactured a complete product at the complex. In the last few years, the company reduced employment levels at the facility in an effort to reorganize its corporate structure and determine the best way to utilize the factory.

In its tenure at NWIRP Dallas, Northrop Grumman has made no major leasehold improvements except for routine maintenance; however, in 1997–98, the company renovated its office space in Facilities 2 and 7, which required a massive 5,000-person layoff. Also during this time, the Navy decided to divest itself of NWIRP Dallas and other aircraft-related GOCO facilities. The Navy gave Northrop Grumman the first opportunity to purchase NWIRP Dallas, but the company declined, preferring to lease rather than own the property. The Navy offered to sell NWIRP Dallas to the City of Dallas, which currently owns both Hensley Field and the former NAS Dallas complex. The city accepted the proposal and on 24 March 1999, Congress took the first step in the transfer of NWIRP Dallas to the city with the passage of Senate Bill S-694 (Figures 8-44 & 8-45).

Figure 8-45. Aerial view of NWIRP Dallas, 1991. Source: NWIRP Dallas Plant Records.

PAGE 8-88 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

OWNERSHIP OF NWIRP DALLAS CHANGES Throughout the transfer of the property to the City of Dallas, Northrop Grumman continued on as lessee of NWIRP Dallas, filling orders for the B-2 Stealth Bomber manufacturing program as well as the Joint STARS, E-2C, and Global Hawk programs. In the third quarter of 1999, Northrop Grumman experienced a backlog at most of its production facilities, but at NWIRP Dallas, the company experienced a significant slow- down. Grumman attributed the decrease in work to the conclusion of the B-2 bomber program. The reduction in B-2 work reduced profits at NWIRP Dallas by half, from $104 million to $51 million. As a result of reduced sales and profits, the company decided to sell its Dallas division (PR Newswire 18 October 2000: np).

In July 2000, Northrop Grumman entered into talks with The Carlyle Group about purchasing the Dallas division and assuming the lease at NWIRP Dallas. The Carlyle Group, a Washington, D.C.-based private venture capital firm, developed a reputation for acquiring and successfully operating 11 defense-related companies, including Power Paragon and United Defense Industries, maker of the Bradley fighting vehicle. The Carlyle Group offered to purchase all of Northrop Grumman’s aerostructures divisions – not just the Dallas division. Northrop Grumman’s commercial aerostructures unit generated annual sales of $706 million and employed some 6,000 people at production facilities in Dallas, Texas; Hawthorne, California; Stuart, Florida; and Milledgeville and Perry, Georgia. Northrop Grumman agreed to the sale of its whole aerostructures sector, so long as The Carlyle Group agreed to assume more then $400 million in employment liabilities and taxes. The Carlyle Group agreed to Northrop Grumman’s terms. On 24 July 2000, The Carlyle Group officially purchased Northrop Grumman’s entire aerostructures sector for $1.2 billion dollars. When publicly announcing the deal, The Carlyle Group confirmed that there would be no significant changes in overall workforce levels and that it would keep aerostructures’ headquarters at NWIRP Dallas, operating under the historic name, Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. (PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:21; PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:05; hoovers.com; thecarlylegroup.com).

The new company formed by The Carlyle Group marked the return of a well-respected name in the aerospace industry and combined the design and manufacturing capabilities of the Vought Aircraft Company, Northrop Corporation, and Grumman Corporation. The new director of aerostructures operations, Gordon Williams,

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-89 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

elaborated on the importance and combination of the three companies under the name Vought Aircraft Industries: “Our new company name carries with it a tradition of excellence. The Vought legacy of achievement in aerospace design, manufacture, and technology innovation has made us what we are today – the premier aerostructures supplier in the world”. Vought Aircraft Industries assumed all of the previous subcontract and prime contract work for the Boeing Company and Gulf Stream Aerospace at NWIRP Dallas, supplying the firms with fuselages, empennages, wing center sections, flight control surfaces, doors and nacelle components, as well as the entire integrated work for the Gulfstream V business jet (PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:21; PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:05).

Immediately following the July 2000 creation of Vought Aircraft Industries, NWIRP Dallas became the center of the company’s fabrication and major assembly operations. Vought Aircraft Industries continued production work for Boeing on both commercial and military projects at NWIRP Dallas. Current commercial products include various structures for the Boeing 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. Current military subcontract work for the Air Force and Navy include major structures on the C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft. NWIRP Dallas employees manufacture the nacelles, horizontal and vertical stabilizers, and universal aerial refueling panels for the C-17. Other military-related products manufactured at Dallas under Vought Aircraft Industries include the E-2C Hawkeye outer wing panels, S-3A Viking wing folds, V-22 fuselage subassemblies, and the wings for the Global Hawk unmanned air vehicle (PR Newswire 24 July 2000: 12:21).

Northrop Grumman’s sale of its aerostructures sector to The Carlyle Group and the renaming of the division to Vought Aircraft Industries only minimally affected operations at NWIRP Dallas, but has delayed the sale of the federally owned property to the City of Dallas from 2002 until 2006. In the meantime, the Navy and the City of Dallas has agreed to keep Vought Aircraft Industries as the lessee of NWIRP Dallas throughout and following the transfer of the property from the military to the private sector. However, during the six-year transfer period, Vought Aircraft Industries is precluded from engaging in any leasehold improvements at NWIRP Dallas without the formal and written consent of the Navy, the City of Dallas, and the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).

PAGE 8-90 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

REGULUS MISSILE HISTORIC CONTEXT ADDITION

BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

1933 • Germany begins study into use of pilotless aircraft, yielding two prototypes, the V-1 and V-2 missiles.

1944 • In June 1944, the Germans initiate V-1 attacks on England. • U.S. Army engineers “reverse-engineer” and test-fly a copy of the V-1. • Production of American version of V-1 (designated JB-2) begins; 2,000 ordered.

1945 • In April, the Navy initiates testing of the JB-2 and designates it the KUW-1 “Loon”. • American production of JB-2 ends in August.

1946 • In June, the BuAer specifications were sent to 18 companies interested in pursuing missile and rocket technologies and willing to participate in a design competition at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

1947 • In February, the first submarine launch of a Loon takes place. • In May, the Air Force awarded Martin a contract for its turbojet-powered, subsonic Matador missile. The Navy saw this action as a threat to its guided missile program and asked BuAer to speed up the selection process in its design competition. • In August, BuAer selected Chance Vought Aircraft and its Regulus missile as the Navy’s first guided missile manufacturing program because of its affordability, recoverability, and ability to be launched from land, surface vessels, and submarines.

1948 • On 17 December, Vought delivered 10 production models to the Navy that were immediately tested at Edwards Air Force Base.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-91 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

1949 • Due to budgetary constraints, the Department of Defense was forced to consolidate funding into one guided missile program. The Air Force’s Matador and Navy’s Regulus missiles entered a competition at Edwards Air Force Base in which the Regulus won.

1950 • Flight-testing on the 10 Regulus I fleet test vehicles began 12 February 1950 at Edwards Air Force Base, using recoverable prototypes. This process took two years.

1952 • In December, Chance Vought began design efforts on the successor to the Regulus I.

1953 • Chance Vought begins full-scale production on the Regulus I, beginning with recoverable fleet test vehicles and continuing with the tactical missile variant. • On 15 July, the first submarine launch of a Regulus occurred aboard the USS Tunny. • The Navy signs a development contract with Chance Vought on the Regulus II.

1954 • Navy begins fleet operation testing of the Regulus missile at the Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station in Mojave, California. Fleet operation testing required 146 launches from the ground, surface ships, and submarines. • Chance Vought began manufacture efforts & initial flight- testing on prototypes of the Regulus II.

1956 • In June, the Navy successfully completed fleet operation testing of the Regulus I, which meant that the missile was qualified for operational use aboard surface ships and submarines. • On 6 February, a Regulus II test vehicle made its first flight at Edwards Air Force Base.

1958

PAGE 8-92 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• The Navy cancelled the Regulus II missile program in favor of the Polaris missile.

1959 • In January, Chance Vought phased out production of the Regulus I following delivery of the 514th production model.

1964 • Regulus I operations ended in July, culminating in 16 years of use by the Navy and more than 1,000 launches.

INTRODUCTION The concept of the cruise missile was conceived during the First World War. German researchers explored the use of pilotless aircraft to deliver ordnance to a particular target, but the project never resulted in a successful prototype. Adolf Hitler resumed research and development into missiles when he was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Hitler’s missile program was far more ambitious than the World War I efforts and can be linked to the Chancellor’s fascination for exotic weaponry, especially rockets and nuclear technology. Germany’s missile program during World War II resulted in two successful designs: the V-1 and V-2 missiles (www.vectorsite.tripod.com; www.mit.edu/people/zimerman).

EARLY HISTORY OF MISSILES, 1939-1945 The German V-1 rocket was the first practical cruise missile. It resembled an unmanned airplane rather than a modern-day missile. Powered by a device known as a pulse-jet engine, the V-1 used a cycling flutter valve to regulate the air and fuel mixture following launch into the air from a ground-based catapult system. Once launched, the German military had no control mechanism for the missile. Course control was achieved through combination of a mag- netic compass and an air- driven gyroscope. The V-1 reached speeds of between 200 and 400 miles per hour and often attained ranges of 150 miles. A highly simplified barometric altimeter located in the front portion of the missile body controlled its altitude. The missile contained a small propeller that activated the onboard warhead after a specified number of rotations. As the missile approached the target zone, the control vanes were inactivated and a rear-mounted spoiler deployed, which sent the missile down towards its target. This downward action interrupted fuel supply to the flutter valve, causing the pulse-jet engine to stop and the weapon to crash and detonate.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-93 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The V-1 was not a reliable weapon due to problems with its Argus As-109 propulsion and rudimentary guidance systems. Nevertheless, between June 1944 and March 1945, the Germans launched over 18,000 V-1 missiles against London and Antwerp, with about 2,400 impacting each city (Figure 8-46). British fatalities from V-1 attacks were calculated at 6,139 – three times the number killed by the later V-2 ballistic missiles (Encyclopedia Britannica 1994-2001: 1; www.mit.edu/people/zimerman; Figure 8-46. The V-1 in England. www.spaceline.org/history).

AMERICAN MISSILE DEVELOPMENT, 1944-1947 Three weeks after German V-1 missiles struck England on June 13, 1944, American engineers began the “reverse-engineering” on America’s first unmanned guided missile. A working model of the V-1 was fired at Wright Field, Ohio just seventeen days after Army engineers received damaged components salvaged from English crash sites. Initial tests of the weapon took place at Muroc Army Air Base (now Edwards AFB), California, and contracts were let for the production of 2,000 weapons, to be designated JB-2 (Jet Bomb-2). While superficially resembling the V-1, the JB-2 incorporated improved guidance systems using airborne and shipborne radars, radio control, and human operators, all of which gave these missiles much greater accuracy than the German weapon. Although it was never used operationally in World War II, by the war’s end some 1,400 had been delivered. The Navy adopted the JB-2, designating it the KUW-1 “Loon” (www.customizedsvcsmgmt. com/MACE/ History.htm; www.cdiss.org/cmhist.htm).

Initially, the Navy intended to deploy the Loon on aircraft carriers but in early 1946 began exploring the feasibility of submarine deployment as well. The first submarine launch took place from the USS Cusk (SS-348) in February 1947. The Carbonero (SS-337) joined the tests several months later and acted as the control and tracking station. The Navy was so impressed with the possibilities of this new weapon that it ordered testing continue through 1949. The continued testing was intended to develop and refine terminal guidance procedures and tactical concepts for the Regulus, a missile then under development by Chance Vought Aircraft (www.nasm.si.edu/ nasm/dsh/artifacts/RM-Loon.htm).

PAGE 8-94 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The early success of the JB-2 and Loon testing resulted in increased funding for research and development of an American-designed weapon system. The department of the Navy was determined to be the first military branch to create an unmanned strategic bombard- ment weapon capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. In the postwar defense appropriations battles, Air Force proponents argued that long-range bombers and nuclear weapons made the traditional role of the Navy obsolete. Because Air Force bombers could now operate from European airfields well within range of Soviet targets, they argued, carrier aviation seemed superfluous. To reaffirm its role as a superior defense force, the Navy needed a nuclear weapon delivery system to break the Air Force’s monopoly on this new weapon. Navy developers saw this opportunity in a seaborne missile program. Of course the Air Force was simultaneously engaged in missile development, which resulted in an unofficial, interdepartmental race for missile supremacy.

The Regulus was one of several programs under concurrent development by the United States military in the late 1940s to provide medium- and long-range nuclear-armed cruise missiles. By the late 1950s, several of these systems were in operational service, including the Air Force’s medium-range Matador and Mace, long-range Snark, and the Navy’s sea-launched Regulus. Other systems, such as North American’s Navaho, never reached production due to technical problems (www.cdiss.org/cmhist2.htm; www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/ icbm/sm-64.htm).

By the end of 1945, advancements in electronic technology greatly improved research into rockets and missiles that served to separate German designs from postwar models. The Navy tasked the Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) to expand its missile program from primarily analysis and research and into development of a combat-ready prototype. This next generation of Naval missiles utilized new electronics with proven research. BuAer formed a study committee, headed by Commander Grayson Merrill, to review the status of American, English, and German guided missiles. The committee submitted a 69 page report on 15 December 1945 entitled “Study of Requirements for Pilotless Aircraft for Fleet Use in 1950”. The report resulted in a set of design criteria most likely to produce a successful guided missile. The Department of the Navy considered guided missiles the future of the armed forces and felt that a design competition was the best method to get American aircraft companies involved in the early development of this type of weapon system. BuAer distributed the design criteria to 18 of the nation’s leading aircraft companies, of

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-95 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

which only 12 chose to participate. Subsequently, BuAer dispersed approximately $5 million for each of its 12 design contracts (Stumpf 1996: 20).

In May 1947, the Army Air Force awarded the Glenn L. Martin Company a contract for its turbojet-powered, subsonic missile, which later became known as the Matador (Figure 8-48). The Navy was much further behind schedule in choosing a company to manufacture a prototype and saw the selection of Martin as a threat to its role in guided missile technology. Consequently, the Navy ordered BuAer to immediately select one of the 12 com- Figure 8-48. The Matador. panies involved in the design competition. By August, BuAer completed a review on the status of all contractors involved in the guided missile development competition and assessed which company had the most plausible design. BuAer selected a design by Chance Vought Aircraft.

CHANCE VOUGHT AIRCRAFT WINS THE GUIDED MISSILE COMPETITION As one of America’s first aircraft designers and manufacturers, Chance Vought Aircraft set many of aviation’s earliest records, including the first airplane to take-off and land on a carrier in 1922. The company manufactured for the Allies throughout World War II, producing such famed aircraft as the F4U Corsair, OS2U Kingfisher, and the SB2U Vindicator. Chance Vought Aircraft began its research into missiles in October 1943 after first hearing of Germany’s pilotless aircraft program. The company was one of the 12 aircraft manufacturers that responded to the guided missile competition initiated by BuAer in 1945. The Navy offered the company the design specifications and Vought was tasked to develop a design plan that con- formed to these standards:

• The missile had to carry a 3,000-pound nuclear warhead to a maximum range of 500 nautical miles at Mach .85 with a CEP of .5 percent of the range; • The vehicle had to be at least 30 feet in length, 10 feet in span, 4 feet in diameter; and, • The vehicle had to weigh between 10,000 and 12,000 pounds. Because Chance Vought Aircraft had a design in development for nearly two years that was based roughly on these guidelines, the company had an advantage over other firms competing for BuAer

PAGE 8-96 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN contracts. Furthermore, Vought’s longstanding manufacturing history with the United States military afforded the company an additional edge. Vought knew how the military operated, its performance requirements, and that the armed forces often favored cost-effective manufacturing programs (www.voughtaircraft.com; www.fas.org).

In 1945, Vought submitted to BuAer a guided missile design, called the P/A VI (Figure 8-49). Vought’s design was conventional, mean- ing it looked like a small jet aircraft. The model closely resembled aircraft designs that the Navy liked and had purchased. The missile’s similarity to an aircraft meant that it could be manufactured with existing aircraft components and tooling equipment, machinery, and practices. Vought’s missile was sleek, tubular, and utilized the same engine as the Air Force’s Matador – the Allison J-33 engine. This power plant had a proven flight record and was already used in early jet aircraft designs by several different manufacturers, including the Glenn L. Martin Company. The aforementioned advantages made Chance Vought’s design the most likely to enter manufacturing quickly, but more importantly, it was the most affordable. The defining characteristic in the missile’s affordability was that the test version was recoverable and reusable. The P/A VI test models had landing gear and a parabrake that enabled most vehicles to be recovered and reused during test flight operations. This recoverability feature greatly reduced the cost of flight tests and development. Consequently, BuAer awarded Chance Vought Aircraft a manufacturing contract in early 1946 for one guided missile prototype (www.voughtaircraft.com; www.fas.org).

Figure 8-49. The P/A VI.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-97 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Short History of Significant Missile Development

Name Year Specifications Significant Design Features Historical Information

Powered by German pulse Resembled an unmanned Predecessor of Regulus I and German V-1 Missile 1938 - 1945 jet engine airplane rather than missile today's cruise missile

Powered by German pulse Resembled an unmanned Direct ancestor of the inter- German V-2 Missile1938 - 1945 jet engine airplane rather than missile continental ballistic missile

Powered by an Allison J-33 Mid-sized pilotless aircraft 1,000 Matadors manufactured with 5,200 pounds thrust Launched by a solid fuel booster Air Force deployed the weapon Martin/Matador Range of 690 nautical miles rockets to West Germany, Florida Martin Mace 1946 - 1970 Traveled 650 miles per hour Radio guided and Taiwan Armed with a high-explosive Matador entered into DoD or W-28 nuclear warhead competition and lost to Vought's Regulus I Powered by an Allison J-33 Cigar-shaped 514 Regulus I manufactured with 4,600 pounds thrust Launched by 2 solid fuel booster for use service - wide Range of 500 nautical miles rockets Five submarines designed Chance Vought 1947 - 1964 Traveled at subsonic speeds Radio control around the Regulus I Regulus I Armed with a W-5 or W-27 Carried aboard 10 aircraft nuclear warhead carriers and 4 cruisers Recoverable test vehicles

Powered by a Wright RJ-47 Launched vertically by large 10 prototypes made and paral- ramjet engine with 40,000 liquid-fueled rocket booster, leled the Navy's Polaris North American pounds thrust which set a World's Program cost $880 million Navaho/Triton 1950 - 1957 Reached altitudes of 90,000 ft. Speed Record Work on the Navaho/Triton Traveled at Mach 2.05 considered significant to modern ICBM development

Table 8-12. Concise history of guided missile development.

PAGE 8-98 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Short History of Significant Missile Development

Name Year Specifications Significant Design Features Historical Information

Launched by solid-fuel rocket Canard-configured Only 20 Regulus II made, but booster Air-breathing cruise system did see operational use Chance Vought 1953 - 1958 Range of 1,150 nautical miles Armed with a 2,920-pound Not as prolific as the Regulus I, Regulus II Missile Traveled at Mach 2 W-27 nuclear warhead but an interim weapon until completion of the Polaris

Powered by a Pratt & Whitney Launched from a B-52, Arguably one of the most J52-P-3 jet engine equipped with INS star successful missile program, North American with 7,500 pounds thrust tracker guidance systems replacing almost all other Hound Dog Missile 1957 - mid 1970s Range of 805 miles at altitude Armed with a W-28 nuclear programs service - wide Traveled at Mach 2.1 warhead Used to disrupt Soviet defenses and clear path for the B-52

Launched by a dual-thrust Simple sleek, spike design Influenced by the Hound Dog solid-fuel rocket motor Launched from a B-52 & B-1, Offered in four different Boeing AGM-69/ Range of 100 miles equipped with INS star semi-ballistic flight modes SRAM Missile late 1960s - 1990 Traveled at Mach 3 tracker guidance systems Prolific weapon and used Armed with a W-80 nuclear service - wide warhead

Launched by solid-fuel rocket, Air-breathing cruise system Navy's successor to Regulus both underwater & surface Armed with a 600 kt W47-Y1 I & II missile programs Lockheed - Martin Range of 1,200-2,500 nautical Mod 1 fission-fusion-fission Manufactured in 3 versions Polaris Fleet 1955 - 1990 miles warhead, which is nearly 43 First missile ever successfully Ballistic Missile Manufactured in solid steel times the power of the launched from underwater motor casing Hiroshima explosion Prominently used in the last Operated inertia guidance 3 decades of Cold War

Table 8-12 (continued). Concise history of guided missile development.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-99 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Figure 8-50. Hensley Field at NAS Dallas. On 3 October 1947, Vought submitted its preliminary proposal to BuAer for the cost of fabricating one test vehicle. In Vought’s proposal, the company stated its primary goal was the quick production of “…a flight test vehicle that differed as little as possible from the tactical vehicle”. Vought estimated it would cost $4,997,309 for one prototype, referred to in the proposal as the Regulus Missile. Vought’s Regulus missile was to be powered by the Allison J-33 jet engine. Vought relied on existing and successful designs in order to reduce delays and engineering time on engine development and trouble-shooting. BuAer accepted Vought’s design and cost estimate. On 17 November 1947, BuAer and Chance Vought Aircraft signed a Contract of Intent, number No(a) 9450 for the manufacture of one Regulus prototype (Stumpf 1996: 21).

Chance Vought began initial work on the Regulus prototype at its Stratford, Connecticut manufacturing plant. At the time, the company was moving its corporate headquarters and entire manufacturing operations to a Navy-owned manufacturing complex in Dallas, Texas. Following World War II, the Navy gained stewardship of 11 industrial plants dedicated to aircraft, missile, and engine development and manufacturing. Due to several factors – the most important of which was national security – the Department of the Navy was intent on distributing essential military manufacturers from congested, vulnerable coastal areas to inland states. Chance Vought was one of the Navy’s prime manufacturers and the Dallas plant was new, modern, and significantly larger than the Stratford plant.

Members of the Dallas City Chamber of Commerce traveled to the Stratford plant and met with Vought officials. The visitors encour- aged the company to move to Dallas by describing the area’s excellent year-round flying weather, affordable housing, well-trained labor pool, and diminutive tax burden. The Navy also persuaded Vought to

PAGE 8-100 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN move to Dallas by offering them use of Hensley Field at NAS Dallas, located immediately east of the main manufacturing plants and hangars (Figure 8-50). Finally, the Navy offered a lease on the Dallas Plant of $1 per year so long as Vought manufactured products for the armed forces. Vought agreed to the lease and carried out the move to Dallas in incremental phases that took 14 months to complete. Throughout the transition, Vought continued to manufacture the F4U Corsair and the F6U Pirate jet aircraft as well as development of the Regulus missile prototype (www.voughtaircraft.com).

CHANCE VOUGHT MOVES TO DALLAS, TEXAS Prior to the move, the Department of the Navy invested $12.4 million to renovate Facility 6, the main manufacturing plant at NIRAP Dallas. The Navy funds also expanded existing buildings and structures as well as provided monies for new construction. Vought invested nearly $9 million in this expansion. Overall, the renovation and expansion at NIRAP Dallas provided the company enough space to meet productive commitments, reduce company backlog, and increase research and development capabilities (www.voughtaircraft. com).

Facility 6 received four newly constructed internal processing areas as part of the expansion effort. One the processing areas was dedicated to the manufacture of jet aircraft and another dedicated entirely to the Regulus missile (Figure 8- 51). According to former employees at the plant, the Regulus manufacturing space was a high security area where employees wore special badges for clearance into manufacturing and production. Along the west end of Facility 6, the Navy built and installed equipment for a Metallite Processing Department. Vought created and patented Metallite during World War II and used the product on the wings of jet aircraft and the Regulus mis- Figure 8-51. Regulus manufacture. sile. The Metallite Processing Department was centrally located between the jet and missile manufacturing spaces. Vought relied heavily on aluminum, steel, metal, and other lightweight alloys for most aircraft and missile skins and frames. The final processing area was devoted to heat treatment of both steel and aluminum, and for the anodizing, dichromate, and

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-101 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

other metal- working requirements (Barksdale 1958: 19; Analysis of Leasehold Improvement nd: 1; Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4).

Facility 49, a 129,000-square-foot building, was the largest project undertaken during the Vought expansion at NIRAP Dallas (Figure 8- 52). This building cost $1.6 million to construct and accommodated a new Engineering Department and Laboratory. Chance Vought Aircraft utilized Facility 49 in the design of all its products, from aircraft to missiles and rockets (Chance Vought News 30 September 1948: 4).

VOUGHT RESUMES REGULUS WORK AT NIRAP DALLAS In April 1948, Chance Vought Aircraft completed its move to Naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Plant (NIRAP) Dallas. Vought immediately resumed the engineering phase of the Regulus missile prototype. Vought submitted a proposal to BuAer detailing the specifics of the manufacturing and testing phases. The plan submitted to Figure 8-52. Facility 49. BuAer covered all items that the company would deliver to the Navy under its 1947 contract valued at approximately $4.9 million:

• Fabrication of one Regulus Flight Test Article, complete in all details and ready for flight testing upon delivery to the Navy; • Instrumentation of the Flight Test Article; • Fabrication of the launcher; • Fabrication of a mock-up; • Fabrication of the Beacon Guidance System; and, • Fabrication of ten test missiles and airborne Beacon Guidance units. On 1 June 1948, Vought informed the Navy that it could produce 30 Regulus test missiles for the amount originally allocated. The fabrication and testing phase of the project was to occur in the company’s new and modern plant. NIRAP Dallas’ production capabilities enabled the company to consolidate Regulus manufacturing and testing in one single location, which further reduced manufacturing costs

PAGE 8-102 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN and permitted the company to fabricate 29 additional models (Figure 8-54). By 17 December 1948, Vought delivered the first 10 Regulus production models (Stumpf 1996: 21).

VOUGHT FACES AN EARLY CHALLENGE IN THE REGULUS PROGRAM In November 1949, qualification tests began in Dallas, which consisted of vehicle fabrication quality. The next phase of testing was airborne and ground radio com- Figure 8-54. Production of the Regulus II. mand control, which occurred at Naval Air Station Chincoteague, Virginia. Radio testing was completed in a month and the Regulus Project Team returned to Dallas to prepare for field operations. Upon the team’s return, Vought learned that budgetary constraints forced the Pentagon to re-focus its funding into guided missiles. At the time, the Pentagon was simultaneously funding the Navy’s Regulus and the Air Force’s Matador missile projects. The Matador and the Regulus were similar – both powered by the Allison J-33 and both in fabrication stages. The Pentagon decided that the two programs would be combined into a single program that would save the Department of the Defense a significant amount of money. The Pentagon recommended an interservice competition between the two missiles, with the winner placed under the cog- nizance of the Navy. The winning missile was to then be used by both branches of the Armed Forces (Stumpf 1996: 21-22).

The Pentagon convened a joint Research & Development Board to study and compare the Matador and the Regulus programs. Most observers at the time considered the Matador to be about a year ahead of the Regulus in fabrication, but the Navy argued that it could not be adapted for fleet use. Regulus advocates pointed to its simpler guidance system, which required only two submarines and one aircraft to control the missile, as compared with the Matador, which required three submarines. Also, the Matador’s single booster had to be fitted to the missile after it was on the launcher while, in contrast, the Regulus was stowed with its two boosters attached. In addition, Chance Vought built a recoverable version of the missile, which saved approximately $400,000 per test launch. Recoverability meant that Vought’s missile was cheaper to use. This also meant that in comparison to the Regulus, the Matador would require more money, men, and machinery (www.fas.org).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-103 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The Research & Development Board selected the Regulus program and consolidated funding in guided missile development with the Navy for the next few years. The selection of the Regulus settled the interservice competition between the Navy and Air Force that began during World War II. The Navy developed a way to deliver a more powerful warhead via a lightweight missile launched from a submarine, seagoing vessel, or land. The Regulus victory seemed to confirm the Navy’s return to importance within the armed forces. “It now found itself with a modern weapons system with which to play in the big game” (www.users.erols.com; www.fas.org).

The Navy’s victory was short-lived and the Regulus Project Team was back to work. BuAer quickly turned its attention to completing the flight- testing phase, which began in February 1950. Flight-testing was a joint effort between Chance Vought and the Navy and occurred incremen- tally over a two-year period. The Navy planned to test and fine-tune the missile at Edwards Air Force Base, California, using the recoverable pro- Figure 8-55. Edwards Air Force Base. totypes (Stumpf 1996: 21). Testing the missile at NIRAP Dallas would cause unnecessary and unwarranted attention. The dry lakebeds at Edwards afforded Vought the necessary room for evaluating the missile as well as extreme privacy (Figure 8-55). Once the missile’s initial flight characteristics and recoverability were proven at Edwards, the Navy then tested the missile at Pt. Mugu, California and nearby San Nicolas Island (Stumpf 1996: 30).

REGULUS HISTORY DURING THE COLD WAR PERIOD, 1950-1989 The Regulus/Matador guided missile consolidation placed additional pressures on Chance Vought Aircraft’s manufacturing facilities. The company now had to produce nearly double the amount of guided missiles, enough for both the Navy and the Air Force as well as in three variants:

• The Fleet Test Vehicle, later renamed the flight training or fleet training missile;

PAGE 8-104 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• The Tactical Missile, which came equipped with removable landing gear, additional fuel capacity, and a either a W-5 or W-27 nuclear warhead; and, • The Target Drone, which was nearly identical to the Fleet Test Vehicle, but differed in the telemetry for target mass indication and had greater fuel capacity.

Each Regulus version had identical dimensions and launching requirements, using two Jet Assisted Take-off solid fuel booster rockets (Table 8-13). In all, the Pentagon wanted over 500 production models (Stumpf 1996: 24).

NIRAP DALLAS EXPANDS TO MEET NEW PRODUCTION DEMANDS From 1950-1955, Chance Vought received expanded Regulus production orders on top of increased orders for its jet aircraft. The Korean conflict placed demands on Vought that its existing facilities simply could not accommodate. Vought needed new workers to meet its contractual requirements on the Cutlass and Corsair jet aircraft and the Regulus missile. In addition to hiring new employees during the Korean War, Vought needed additional manufacturing space at NIRAP Dallas. In late 1951, Chance Vought announced a $4 million expansion program that it called the Spring Building Program in company newsletters and local newspapers. The expansion included construction of new buildings, upgrading existing NIRAP Dallas facilities, and adding new parking lots to accommodate elevated employment levels (Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report 1974: 5).

Regulus I Design Features

Specifications English Metric

Wingspan 21 feet 6.4 meters

Length 34 feet 4 inches 10.5 meters

Speed subsonic subsonic

Range 500 miles 800 kilometers

Total Weight 14, 520 pounds 6,000 kilograms

Source: www.vectorsite.tripod.com

Table 8-13. Design specifications of the Regulus I.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-105 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Chance Vought submitted its construction request to the Navy. After examining the specifications of the proposed expansion, the Navy agreed to supply Vought land for new construction as well as con- tribute some funds for plant and building renovations. Since construction occurred on Navy-owned lands, work was approved and supervised by the Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, located in New Figure 8-55. Facility 95. Orleans, Louisiana. In some of the cases, the Bureau of Yards & Docks supplied the architectural drawings, but independent contractors carried out at least half of the design work. Vought constructed several facilities for use in fabrication of both jet aircraft and missiles. Facility 94, a research, design, and structures test lab for the Regulus missile, was one of the first new buildings constructed as part of Vought’s Spring Building Program. The company utilized the space to verify the structural stability of production missiles as well as aid Vought in developing new technologies. Along with Facility 94, Vought constructed five additional buildings – Facilities 95, 97, 102, 103, and 106. The first two supported the Regulus exclusively while the other served jet aircraft operations.

Construction on Facility 95, the Regulus test cell building, began in 1953 and was in early 1954 (Figure 8-55). Test cells consist of both the power and control mechanisms for guided missiles and can be either self-contained rocket motors or air-breathing jet engines. The equipment and machinery installed at Facility 95 was capable of testing both types of engines as well as the outside booster charges from tube launchers. On 18 June 1953, Vought broke ground on Facility 97, a $1.7 million guided missile hangar to store and test the Regulus

Figure 8-56. Facility 97.

PAGE 8-106 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

(Figure 8-56). The nearly 70,000-square- foot hangar contained a high bay area, electronics test area, and storage space, as well as offices and workrooms. Vought used Facility 97 primarily to check and ground test the Regulus prior to its delivery to the west coast for flight operations (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1-2). Regulus missiles leaving Facility 6 were transported to Facility 97 for installation of electrical systems, internal components, as well as final Figure 8-57. Regulus missile. testing operations. Following final component testing, the Regulus missile was moved to nearby Facility 95 for engine simulation, testing, and clearance. Vought used Facility 95’s test cells to simulate engine start-up, take-off, climb, cruise, and let- down (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1).

Once all systems were tested and cleared, the Regulus missiles were moved to Facility 93, the Shipping and Manufacturing Building, for delivery to the navy. Vought utilized Facility 93’s manufacturing space to fabricate special shipping containers for the Regulus because it needed to be shipped intact with no assembly required. The large, cylindrical metal containers held one missile and came equipped with tethers that stabilized the missile during shipping. The tethers prevented shifting and damage to delicate electrical components. Facility 93 employees folded the missile’s wings, loaded one Regulus missile into a shipping container, and then attached the tethers (Figure 8-57). Vought transported the containers via flatbed, commercial trucking lines from Dallas to military testing ranges in Southern California (Figure 8-58).

During construction of the Regulus-dedicated buildings – Facilities 94, 95, and 97 – the Navy and Vought completed testing of the initial prototypes in California. Flight-testing resulted in the first successful

Figure 8-58. Shipping the Regulus missile.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-107 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

launch of a missile from a submarine. On 15 July 1953, the Navy launched a Regulus missile from the deck of the USS Tunny in the Pacific and landed at San Nicolas Island airfield near coastal California. During this same year, the Regulus was repeatedly launched from surface ships. The Navy believed that the Regulus enhanced the usefulness of its Cruisers by extending the vessels’ offensive range and mission capabilities. Following completion of both flight-testing and construction at NIRAP Dallas, the Department of the Navy gave Vought permission to begin full-scale manufacturing on the Regulus (www.fas.org; Stumpf 1996: 48).

FLEET TESTING AND USE OF THE REGULUS MISSILE In January 1954 – and following 46 successful launches of the Regulus – the Chief of Naval Operations decided that the Regulus must undergo the most rigorous form of testing to determine if the missile was ready to enter fleet operations. Chance Vought’s newly expanded facilities at NIRAP Dallas enabled the company to deliver additional production models of the Regulus for use in fleet testing. They Navy planned to launch the extra missiles during combat training exercises that tested the operational usefulness of the Regulus. Fleet operational testing began in August 1954 and was completed in June 1956. The training schedule required 146 missile launches from the ground as well as aboard surface ships and submarines.

Just prior to fleet testing, Chance Vought hosted several weeks of training at NIRAP Dallas where ten Naval engineers learned about the Regulus missile’s major subsystems and detailed knowledge of Regulus production and assembly. Vought believed the training helped naval engineers to deal with unanticipated problems during operational testing and better explain and describe problems with company engineers. Upon graduation from the conference, the Navy deployed the engineers to each Regulus support unit with the task of monitoring fleet operational testing. The success of the NIRAP Dallas conference led to repeat training sessions in which Chance Vought updated Naval personnel on changes and modifications in the engineering and manufacturing processes of the Regulus (Stumpf 1996: 48-49).

The Navy conducted the great bulk of fleet operations testing at the Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station (MCAAS) in Mojave, California. Edwards Air Force Base was the Navy’s first choice for testing, but the installation’s already overburdened training schedules made MCAAS Mojave a good alternative. Near Edwards Air Force Base, MCAAS Mojave was isolated far in the southern California desert

PAGE 8-108 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN and afforded the level of privacy necessitated for the secret missile program. In addition, MCAAS was close to Naval Ordnance Test Station China Lake and the Inyokern nuclear warhead test area, where additional Regulus testing occurred. Fleet training also took place from the aircraft carrier USS John Hancock, deployed in the Western Pacific, as well as aboard the USS Lexington, USS Bon Homme Richard, and the Norfolk-based USS Randolph (Figure 8-59; Stumpf 1996: 49, 54).

The results of the fleet operational testing were Figure 8-59. Regulus fleet training. incredibly favorable to Chance Vought, earning the prestigious “highly reliable” rating by the Navy. Of 146 launches of the Regulus tactical missiles, 82% were considered successful. Tactical missiles – the ones the Navy used in deployment from land, vessel, and submarine – were awarded a 91% reliability rating (Stumpf 1996: 53-54, 74; www.fas.org; www.collinsmuseum.com; www.vectorsite.tripod.com).

The success of the initial Regulus program led to a successor missile called the Regulus II (Figure 8-61). Development on this program began at NIRAP Dallas in 1954, but was cancelled a few years later. The Navy determined that this second program was not a significant improvement on its predecessor, primarily because it could not be launched from a submerged submarine. The Polaris ballistic nuclear missile, which was in development, could launch a nuclear warhead from underwater. The Navy considered the Polaris, not the Regulus II, as the long-term future of Naval missiles. Termination of Vought’s Regulus II program saved the Navy $100 million and these funds were immediately diverted to the Polaris program (Stumpf 1996: 53- 54, 74; www.fas.org; www.collinsmuseum.com; www.vectorsite.tripod.com).

Figure 8-61. The Regulus II missile.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-109 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

It took nearly a decade for the Polaris to be operationally ready, so the Navy continued to support, purchase, and utilize the Regulus I as an interim program. From 1954 to January 1959, Chance Vought manufactured 514 Regulus I tactical missiles. All of these missiles were manufactured at NIRAP Dallas, (now known as NWIRP Dallas). Even though production ended in 1959, the missile remained in service until August 1964. Admiral Zumwalt called the cancellation of the Regulus I as the “single worst decision about weapons [the Navy] made during my years of service.” (www.fas.org). For 16 years, the Regulus served aboard specially designed submarines, a variety of surface ships, and from the ground (Stumpf 1996: 58; www.vectorsite.tripod.com).

NAVAL VESSELS AND DEPLOYMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REGULUS MISSILE For nearly a decade, the Navy extensively used the Regulus I aboard sea-going vessels and submarines (Table 8-14). The Regulus were launched from sea-going vessels by means of a mobile catapult system, which required a minimum amount of mechanical work and installation. The first operational deployment of a Regulus I aboard a sea-going vessel occurred in 1955 and onboard the cruiser USS Los Angeles (CA-135) and later aboard three additional Baltimore Class cruisers – the USS Helena (CA-75), USS Macon (CA-132), and the USS Toledo (CA-133). Each of the four heavy cruisers carried three Regulus I missiles and one catapult launching system. The Regulus I was used in support of Western Pacific patrol routes from 1955-1961 in which American vessels monitored Soviet Naval movements (www.collinsmuseum.com).

In late 1955, the Navy configured a total of ten aircraft carriers to support the Regulus I missile. Of the ten carriers fitted for Regulus I operations, only six actually carried out deployments with the weapon. In general, aircraft carriers supported 4-6 Regulus I missiles and multiple catapult launching systems; therefore, the configuration of aircraft carriers was a more complicated process than with cruisers. Configuration required installation of new power and instrumentation lines from the below-deck storage area to the carrier deck, where the missiles were launched. The first operational warship to launch a Regulus I missile was the USS Princeton (CV-37). The USS Randolph (CV-15) was the first aircraft carrier to be deployed abroad with Regulus I missiles. The USS Randolph, along with the USS Shangri-La (CV-38), the USS Lexington (CV-16), and the USS Ticonderoga (CV-14), were all deployed to the Mediterranean for NATO training exercises (Figure 8-62).

PAGE 8-110 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Naval Vessels Associated with the Regulus Missile

Name of Ship Designation Service Dates Historical Notes

USS Los Angeles CA-135 1955 - 1961 · Carried 3 Regulus Missiles · Used for Operational Patrols in the Pacific Heavy Cruisers USS Helena CA-75 1956 - 1960 · Carried 3 Regulus Missiles · Used for Operational Patrols in the Pacific USS Macon CA-132 1956 - 1958 · Carried 3 Regulus Missiles · Used for Operational Patrols in the Pacific USS Toledo CA-133 1956 - 1959 · Carried 3 Regulus Missiles · Used for Operational Patrols in the Pacific

USS John Hancock CV-19 1955 · Involved extensively with operational training & development of the Regulus RAM Missile USS Princeton CV-37 unknown · Site of the first launch from a warship USS Randolph CV-15 unknown · First aircraft carrier to be deployed with Regulus Aicraft Carriers · Deployed to Mediterranean for NATO training USS Franklin D. CVA-42 unknown · Conducted only one test launch Roosevelt USS Lexington CV-16 unknown · Deployed to Mediterranean for NATO training USS Shangri-La CV-38 unknown · Deployed to Mediterranean for NATO training USS Ticonderoga CV-14 unknown · Deployed to Mediterranean for NATO training USS Saratoga CVA-60 unknown · Participated in two demonstration launches

Table 8-14. Naval vessels associated with the Regulus I missile.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-111 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The USS John Hancock (CV-19) was the most heavily involved aircraft carrier in both the testing and deployment of the Regulus I missile. It was deployed with each version of the Regulus I, the most noteworthy of which was the Regulus Assault Mission concept, Figure 8-62. NATO training exercises in the Mediterranean. or RAM missile, the first of its kind. Part of the 7th Fleet Operations division, the USS Hancock carried Regulus I missiles on deployments in Hawaii, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, Laos, and on Soviet patrols in the South China Seas. The USS Hancock also tested the Regulus II missile near San Diego, prior to its cancellation in favor of the Polaris missile (www.collinsmuseum.com; www.navyhistory.com).

The Regulus missile was the first nuclear weapon capable of launch from a submarine – a feat that took the Soviet Union more than a decade after the Regulus to achieve. Regulus submarine launches were a much more complicated process than vessel or land-based launches. Submarines carried the Regulus missiles in a two- round hangar mounted on the exterior body of the ship (Figures 8-63). The ship surfaced and then sailors removed the weapon from the hangar compartment and loaded it onto the catapult launching system. The entire launch sequence took approximately 15 minutes to complete. The Navy selected Figure 8-63. Carrying methods for the Regulus. five diesel-powered, World War II-era submarines to be specially retrofitted with a Regulus hangar compartment and launching protocol (Figure 8-64). In the early 1950s, the Navy dry-docked the USS Cusk (SSG-348), USS Tunny (SSG-282), USS Barbero (SSG-577), USS Grayback (SSG-574), and the USS Growler (SSG- 517) to install instrumentation, wiring, the hangar compartment, and an exterior catapult launching system (Table 8-15). With the modifications, each submarine supported between two and four missiles (www.vectorsite.tripod.com; www.collinsmuseum.com).

PAGE 8-112 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The Navy completed alterations to the diesel-powered submarines in 1956. Subsequently, the submarines were re- designated SSG class and placed in service with the Pearl Harbor Submarine Force Family (Figure 8-65). In October 1959, the USS Cusk, USS Tunny, USS Barbero, USS Grayback, and the USS Growler made their first missions as Figure 8-64. Regulus-launching mechanism on the U.S.S. part of a top secret program called Growler. Regulus Deterrent Patrols. The details of these missions are still largely classified nearly four decades after the program ended. According to veterans of the deterrent missions, these submarines traveled through the Artic and into Soviet waters and the South China Sea, enabling the Navy to monitor Soviet submarine and naval operations. Oral histories also indicate that these ships carried Regulus missiles directly to Russia’s coast. The five aforementioned submarines made a total of 40 patrols over a five year period (www.users.erols.com; www.scs.wsu.edu; www.vectorsite.tripod.com; www.collinsmuseum.com;).

Concurrent with the SSG program was a move by the Department of the Navy to develop and manufacture nuclear-powered submarines, referred to as the SSG(N) program. Work on the SSG(N) class submarines began at the same time as diesel-powered submarines were retrofitted for Regulus Deterrent Patrols. The first SSG(N) class submarine was the USS Halibut (SSG(N)- 587). Manufactured Figure 8-65. SSG-class submarine during a missile launch. at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California, the USS Halibut was commissioned in January 1960. The Halibut was not only the Navy’s first nuclear-powered submarine, but it was also the first submarine designed and manufactured from keel up to launch guided missiles. Designed to carry the Regulus I missile, the Halibut’s main deck was taller than other submarines to provide a dry “flight-deck” for loading the missile onto the catapult and launched (Figure 8-66). The loading mechanism was completely automated with hydraulic powered machinery that brought the Regulus from the hangar compartment and up to the deck (www.geocities.com; www.users.erols.com; www.scs.wsu.edu).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-113 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

On 11 March 1960, the USS Halibut sailed to Hawaii to join the Pearl Harbor Submarine Force Family. During its first year of operation, the Navy used the Halibut for worldwide demonstrations of the U.S. nuclear capabilities in locations such as Australia, Southeast Asia, and locations throughout Figure 8-66. USS Halibut with flight deck. the western Pacific. In April 1961, the USS Halibut began Regulus Deterrent Patrols as part of Pacific Fleet operations. From 1961-1964 the USS Halibut made an unknown number of deterrent patrols in classified locations. Unlike diesel-powered submarines, the Halibut was capable of making extended, submerged missile deterrent patrols, possibly up to six months per mission. Prior to the Halibut, lengthy, covert missions were impossible for both the U.S. and the Russians. In 1965, the USS Halibut returned to the Mare Island Naval Shipyard to be reconfig- ured for use with the Polaris Missile (www.geocities.com; www.users.erols.com).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REGULUS MISSILES At the end of World War II, the crux of the United States military’s massive nuclear retaliation depended solely on the Air Force, which greatly limited the strategic capabilities of the armed forces – military leaders could only deliver a nuclear bomb to areas accessible by heavy bomber aircraft. The advent of guided missiles changed military planning because they provided strategists an opportunity to deliver thermonuclear weapons directly upon enemy territory, regardless of the location and its accessibility. In this post-war environment, the Navy found itself in a uniquely important position, especially after it combined its guided missile programs with a modern, strong fleet of vessels and submarines. The development, acceptance, and operational readiness of the Regulus missile reinstated the Navy’s position within the armed forces and placed it on equal footing with the Air Force in terms of strategic and wartime planning. For a decade, the Navy had the only guided missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world in a matter of days. Not even the Soviet Union had a comparable weapon system. In this sense, Chance Vought’s Regulus I missile was a true product of the Cold

PAGE 8-114 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Submarines Associated with the Regulus Missile

Photo Name of Ship Type of Vessel Service Dates Historical Notes

Nuclear-powered, · First ever guided missile nuclear sub USS Halibut designed specifically 1961 - 1964 · Capable of long-range, submerged SSGN-587 around Regulus Regulus Deterrent Patrols, independent of support vessels

World War II diesel- · First submarine to launch a guided USS Cusk powered submarine 1961 - 1964 missile SSG-348 converted for Regulus · Served as a missile guidance submarine

World War II diesel- · Participated in Regulus Deterrent USS Tunny powered submarine 1961 - 1964 Patrols with support of other SSG-282 converted for Regulus naval vessels

World War II diesel- · Participated in Regulus Deterrent USS Barbero powered submarine 1961 - 1964 Patrols with support of other converted for Regulus naval vessels

USS Grayback Diesel-powered · Participated in Regulus Deterrent SSG-574 submarine built 1961 - 1964 Patrols with support of other for Regulus Missile naval vessels

USS Growler Diesel-powered 1961 - 1964 · Participated in Regulus Deterrent SSG-577 submarine built Patrols with support of other for Regulus Missile naval vessels Table 8-15. Submarines associated with Regulus I.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 8-115 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

War – conceived during a time in which the United States military was looking for a powerful deterrent to Soviet and communist expansion worldwide. Even though the Regulus was not the most technologically advanced of guided missiles, it was a proven design, affordable, recoverable, and capable of launch from land, ship, or submarine. Furthermore, the Navy designed, constructed, and commissioned a submarine (USS Halibut) around the Regulus in an effort to maximize the usefulness of the weapon. The Halibut’s operations were top secret and are classified even today. These characteristics made Chance Vought’s Regulus missile important to Cold War policies and practices and valuable to the government of the United States of America (www.collinsmuseum.com/ regulus; www.scs.wsu.edu; www.fas.org; www.users.erols.com).

PAGE 8-116 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

PROPERTY TYPES

Naval Weapons Industrial Plant Dallas contains 159 buildings and structures, all of which directly or indirectly support the station’s primary mission of manufacturing of aerospace-related materials. Based on their original function/use, these properties can be grouped into broad categories or property types. Each property type includes resources that may possess physical and associative qualities that dis- tinguish them from properties in other groupings. There are seven property types found at the plant:

• Office/Administration • Hangar • Manufacturing • Warehouse/Storage • Operational Support • Laboratory/Engineering • Utilities/Infrastructure

OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION Resources in this category include those buildings that house administrative activities related to the day-to-day operations of the plant, such as accounting, engineering, facilities management, general office staff, and computer-related services. There are six Office/Administration buildings at NWIRP Dallas. The earliest properties within this category (Facilities 7, 2, 5, and 49) were constructed between 1942 and 1949. The remaining two Office/Administrative resources, Facilities 194 and 220, were erected in 1968 and 1969, respectively. The four office buildings constructed in the 1940s are located in the north-central and northwestern part of the plant and, with the exception of Facility 5, are similar in scale, construction method, and use of material. These resources are large three- or four- story, irregular- or rectangular-plan buildings resting atop concrete slab-on-grade foundations. Construction systems are steel frame, and exteriors are ribbed steel siding and concrete. Roofs are flat and constructed of built-up roofing materials. Primary exterior entrances are hinged paired and hinged single aluminum- frame doors. Because these buildings were designed to “black-out” standards, they lack windows.

Facility 5, also situated in the northern portion of the plant, is a small one-story lean-to that was appended to Facility 1’s west façade in 1941. The resource, much like it contemporaries, is a steel-frame, flat-roof building that rests atop a concrete slab-on-grade foundation.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 9-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Its exterior walls, however, are clad with vinyl siding. Additionally, its exterior entrances are metal horizontal-sliding doors and rubber overhead doors. Facility 5’s windows are single-hung, aluminum- sash units.

The two later office buildings (Facilities 194 and 220) are both situated in the western portion of the plant. Both facilities are rectangular- plan, steel-frame resources with flat, built-up roofs. They are two- or three-stories high and display aluminum-frame storefront primary entrances. Windows are fixed aluminum-sash units.

HANGAR The six buildings in this category- Facilities 16, 20, 76, 97, 104, and 244- are situated within a grouping in the east-central portion of NWIRP Dallas. The interior of each hangar typically consists of an open cavernous space with several smaller partitioned areas dedicated to administrative and/or manufacturing-oriented uses. The hangars, built between 1941 and 1969, are large one- to three-story, steel-frame buildings with irregular or rectangular plans. Foundations are concrete slab-on-grade and roofs are flat or shallow-gabled and constructed of built-up roofing material. Exteriors are clad with ribbed steel siding with concrete bases or skirting. Each hangar’s primary façade prominently displays a bank of massive tracked horizontal-sliding steel doors. Also present are hinged-single and hinged- paired metal doors. Windows, when present, are industrial projected- panel steel sash units. Each of the resources in this category presents a restrained, unadorned exterior that reflects the strictly utilitarian functions they house. They display no architectural elaboration or stylistic ornamentation.

MANUFACTURING Properties in the Manufacturing category include those resources that house manufacturing and production activities at NWIRP Dallas. The majority of the 13 resources in this category are located within a cluster around the plant’s two primary manufacturing buildings (Facilities 1 and 6) in the northern portion of NWIRP Dallas. The earliest manufacturing buildings -Facilities 1, 6, 22, 23, and 32- were constructed between 1941 and 1943. Much like the hangars, these buildings typically feature unpartitioned cavernous interior spaces accessed by banks of massive horizontal-sliding steel exterior doors. Smaller partitioned areas, sometimes located in lean-to wings, house administrative functions. These early manufacturing facilities are one- to three-story, irregular- or rectangular-plan buildings of steel- or wood-frame construction. Foundations are concrete slab-on-

PAGE 9-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN grade. Exteriors are clad with ribbed steel siding, concrete, wood siding, and vinyl siding. With the exception of Facility 32, which has a vaulted primary roofline with flat-roof wings, each of these facilities feature a gabled primary roofline with lower flat- or shed-roof wings. Exterior entrances include massive horizontal-sliding steel doors, metal canopy doors with an integral sliding panel, overhead single rubber doors, and hinged-paired wood doors. Windows, when present, are fixed aluminum-frame or industrial steel-sash projecting units.

Facilities 105, 106, 110, and 135 are manufacturing buildings erected between 1954 and 1956. They are one-story rectangular-plan buildings on concrete slab-on-grade foundations. Construction systems are steel frame and roofs are flat or vaulted. Facilities 105, 106, and 135 all feature ribbed steel siding-clad exteriors with concrete bases or skirtings, while Facility 110’s exterior is clad only in ribbed steel siding. Exterior entrances are metal canopy doors, hinged paired metal doors, and hinged single metal doors with vision panel. All manufacturing facilities built during this period lack windows.

Built between 1967 and 1969, Facilities 198, 207, 222, and 225 are the most recent group of manufacturing buildings constructed at NWIRP Dallas. Facilities 222, 207, and 225 are situated in the northern portion of the plant within the grouping of manufacturing buildings near Facilities 1 and 6, while Facility 198 is more centrally located. These resources, much like the earlier manufacturing buildings, are distinctive yet utilitarian buildings lacking exterior ornamentation or stylistic influences. All are rectangular plan, one- to four-story buildings of steel-frame construction. Foundations are concrete slab-on grade. Roofs are flat and constructed of built-up roofing materials. Exteriors are primarily clad with ribbed-steel siding, although brick and concrete is also present. Exterior entrances are horizontal-sliding metal doors, overhead metal doors, and hinged paired metal doors. None of the buildings have windows.

WAREHOUSE/STORAGE Warehouse/Storage buildings at NWIRP Dallas are those facilities that house functions related to the stockpiling of goods, supplies, materials, and finished products manufactured at the plant. In total, there are 47 warehouse/storage facilities at NWIRP Dallas. Rather than being located within a grouping or cluster, these resources are in various locations throughout the plant. Construction dates for warehouse/storage facilities range from 1942 to 1980. Resources in the

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 9-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Warehouse/Storage category are utilitarian in nature, with minimal, if any amounts of architectural styling or exterior ornamentation.

The historic-age Warehouse/Storage buildings (Facilities 3,4,12,30,46,47, and 48), constructed in 1942 and 1943, are small one-story, wood- or steel-frame, rectangular-plan structures with shed or flat roofs. Foundations are pier-and-beam, concrete slab-on-grade, and raised concrete slab. Exteriors are typically clad with vinyl siding, although ribbed steel siding and concrete also occur. These buildings lack windows, and doors are horizontal-sliding metal doors and overhead metal doors.

The remaining non-historic Warehouse/Storage buildings were erected between 1950 and 1980. These resources are typically rectangular- plan, one-story buildings of steel-frame construction. Roofs are most often gabled, although flat and vaulted rooflines are also present. Exterior materials are ribbed steel siding, concrete, or steel plate. Primary entrances are overhead metal doors, horizontal-sliding metal doors, and hinged paired or hinged single metal doors. Windows are steel sash industrial projecting panel units.

LABORATORY/ENGINEERING Resources in this category include buildings originally constructed to house functions directly related to the design and testing of new products and weapons. Constructed between 1954 and 1980, Laboratory/Engineering buildings constitute a small number of resources at NWIRP Dallas and are easily defined because of the highly specialized activities they house.

The buildings in this category are one- to two-story, irregular- or rectangular-plan buildings with concrete slab-on-grade foundations. Eight of the twelve Laboratory/Engineering buildings utilize steel- frame construction, while the remaining four are of reinforced concrete construction. Roofs are flat, shed, vaulted, or gabled. The exterior wall surfaces of the majority of Laboratory/Engineering resources are clad with ribbed steel siding. A smaller number of Laboratory/Engineering display stucco, steel plate, or concrete exteriors. Facility 6 with its fixed, aluminum-frame windows and Facility 22 with its steel-sash industrial windows are the only Laboratory/Engineering resources with fenestration. Primary entrances include hinged single metal doors, horizontal-sliding metal doors, hinged single metal doors, and overhead sectional metal doors.

PAGE 9-4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The resources in this category are not concentrated in any one area, but are dispersed throughout the plant’s acreage.

INFRASTRUCTURE/UTILITIES This category includes a diverse range of resources that provide underlying support for the operation of the station. Examples of this property type include structures and buildings that are primarily related to utilities, waste, and storage. The buildings and structures in this category are generally not intended for human occupancy but for the housing of equipment.

Infrastructure/Utility buildings were constructed primarily to house above or underground equipment. This category includes buildings such as pumphouses, powerhouses, and generator sheds. These resources are typically small, rectangular-plan structures with flat or shed roofs. The majority of Infrastructure/Utility buildings are of steel-frame construction, although a small number utilize load-bearing masonry (brick or concrete masonry units), reinforced concrete, or wood-frame construction. Exteriors are typically clad with ribbed steel siding. The Infrastructure/Utility buildings that utilize load- bearing masonry or reinforced concrete construction systems have either brick, concrete block, or concrete exteriors. Because Infrastructure/Utility buildings were not constructed for human occupancy, most lack windows. Those with fenestration have industrial steel projecting-panel windows or fixed aluminum-sash units. Primary entrances are hinged doors or metal overhead sectional doors.

Also included in the Infrastructure/Utilities category are structures such as tanks, water cooling towers, and industrial waste treatment facilities. Because these resources are structures rather than buildings, they typically lack architectural features such as roofs, doors, and windows. The tanks included in this category are rectangular- or irregular-plan structures of riveted steel or reinforced concrete construction. The water cooling towers are typically rectangular-plan steel structures with transite or ribbed steel exteriors. Foundations are concrete pads.

Waste treatment structures are above or below grade circular-, rectangular-, or irregular- plan resources of steel-frame or reinforced concrete construction. Foundations are raised or below-grade concrete slabs.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 9-5 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT The Operational Support category includes a wide variety of resources that were constructed to provide services for NWIRP Dallas personnel. Buildings and structures within this category were constructed between 1941 and 1990 and are found in various locations throughout the plant.

Operational Support resources at NWIRP Dallas are typically one- or two-story facilities of wood-frame, load-bearing masonry, steel- frame, or reinforced-concrete construction. Roofs are flat, shed, or gabled. Exterior materials include vinyl siding, brick, concrete, steel plate, and ribbed steel siding. Primary exterior entrances are overhead sectional single doors, hinged single doors, and hinged paired doors. Fenestration, when present, includes industrial, steel sash projected-panel units, steel-sash casement units, or aluminum-frame fixed windows.

PAGE 9-6 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY’S CULTURAL RESOURCE RESPONSIBILITIES

Since the 1960s, Congress has passed a series of laws that protect cultural resources and require all federal agencies to integrate historic preservation into the overall planning and development of programs that might have an impact on the historic integrity of a particular building, site, structure, or object. This legislation not only provides for the preservation of historic and archeological resources, but also protects sites and artifacts sacred to native peoples of the United States. While each law addresses a specific and important aspect of preservation, the NHPA of 1966 (including Section 106 and Section 110) most significantly affects historic resources like those at NWIRP Dallas, Texas because the act describes the process through which properties are listed in the NRHP and are maintained to preserve their integrity.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, ET SEQ.; P.L. 91-190; 40 CFR 1500-1508) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) states that “To the fullest extent possible ... all agencies of the federal government shall ... insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations.” It sets goals and provides means for carrying out environmental policy, requires public participation in the planning process, and requires consultation with agencies or technical experts who have participated in the project planning process and have provided significant information and recommendations. NEPA also requires the preparation of a detailed statement on the environmental impact of major federal actions that significantly affect the environment to ensure that environmental information is available to citizens before decisions are made and major federal actions are taken.

ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1974 (AHPA)(16 U.S.C. 469-469C; P.L. 86-523) The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) of 1974 provides for the preservation of historical and archeological data that might otherwise be irreparably lost or destroyed as a result of flooding, the building of access roads, the erection of workmen’s communities, the relocation of railroads and highways, and any alteration of the terrain caused by federal construction projects or federally funded licensed activities or programs. The Act also requires federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior of any

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 10-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

dam construction. Furthermore, AHPA stipulates that if archeological resources are found, the agency must provide for their recovery or salvage. The law applies to any agency whenever it receives information that a direct or federally assisted activity could cause irreparable harm to prehistoric, historic, or archaeological resources.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT OF 1979 (ARPA) (16 U.S.C. 470AA-470LL; P.L. 96-95; 43 CFR 7; 36 CFR 79) The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) preserves and protects resources and sites on federal and Indian lands by prohibiting the removal, sale, receipt, or interstate transportation of archaeological resources obtained illegally (i.e., without permits) from public or Indian lands. Protected resources include historical and cultural properties and any material remains of past human life or activities that are of archaeological interest. The Act fosters cooperation between governmental authorities, professionals, and the public. It also authorizes federal agencies to issue permits for investigations of archaeological resources on public lands under the agency’s control and provides the procedures for doing so. Permits are required to excavate and remove cultural remains covered by ARPA.The purpose of the ARPA permit process is to ensure that individuals and organizations wishing to work with federal resources have the necessary professional qualifications, and federal standards and guidelines for research and curation are followed. The process allows the SHPO to review and comment on ARPA permit applications. The ARPA permit replaces the permit required by the Antiquities Act of 1906.

AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT OF 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996, ET SEQ.; P.L. 95-341; 43 CFR 7) The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 states that it is the responsibility of the U.S. government to protect and preserve American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians’ freedom of religion. These rights include, but are not limited to, access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremony and traditional rites. Furthermore, the NHPA ensures that tribal values are taken into account by requiring federal agencies to allow tribes to establish their own culturally specific criteria of significance.

PAGE 10-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT OF 1990 (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. 3001-13; P.L. 101-601) The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) provides for the protection of Native American and Native Hawaiian cultural items, and establishes a process for the removal of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony from sites located on lands owned or controlled by the federal government. NAGPRA also explains the transfer of ownership of cultural items to Native American or Native Hawaiian individuals (e.g., direct lineal or cultural descendants), organizations, or tribes. It addresses the recovery, treatment, and repatriation of Native American and Native Hawaiian cultural items by federal agencies and museums. In accordance with Section 3(c) (25 U.S.C. 3002), federal agencies should not claim ownership or permanent control of specified cultural items discovered on federal or tribal lands after 16 November, 1990 in the following instances: • When lineal descendants who claim human remains and associated funerary objects are identified. • When the Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with the closest affiliation presents the strongest claim. • When the tribe or organization that aboriginally occupied the territory presents the strongest claim. NAGPRA distinguishes between pre- and post-enactment (16 November, 1990). The Act contains data gathering, reporting, consultation, and permitting guidelines. The emphasis of NAGPRA is on consultation with Native American tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to ensure that these guidelines play a major role in the treatment of specific cultural objects.

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (16 U.S.C. § 470) The Department of the Navy’s primary obligations to cultural resources under its stewardship stem from the enactment of the NHPA of 1966, an official federal list of historical and cultural properties that are significant in the history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture of the United States. Impetus for the passage of the Act derived largely from the disregard that federal agencies often demonstrated toward the impact of their projects and policies on historic properties. Urban renewal, dam, and highway construction of the 1950s and 1960s destroyed innumerable historic properties that were important, if not on a national or state level, certainly on a local

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 10-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

one. The most important provision of the NHPA was the establishment of the NRHP, the nation’s official list of properties that are worthy of preservation. Passage of the NHPA of 1966 not only established the NRHP, but also designated the NPS, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, as administrator of the program at the federal level. The NHPA also authorized SHPOs in every state to direct and coordinate the NRHP program within their jurisdiction. In addition, federal agencies are directed to designate Federal Preservation Officers to coordinate and implement preservation- related activities within their respective agencies. As a result of the NHPA, federal agencies became active participants in national preservation efforts. The NHPA outlined policies and regulations to implement the program. Two sections of the Act, Sections 106 and 110, list the government’s responsibilities to preserve historic resources.

SECTION 106 OF THE NHPA Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the impact of their actions on significant historic properties and to implement mitigative procedures to offset the Effects of such projects. As stated in Section 106, the head of any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking in any state and the head of any federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. A more detailed discussion of Section 106 appears later in this report.

SECTION 110 OF THE NHPA Section 110 lists all federal agency responsibilities for the preservation of historic properties under its jurisdiction. To comply with Section 110, an agency must: • Assume all responsibility for historic properties within its control. • Undertake any necessary measure of preservation to comply with this section. • Designate a qualified preservation officer to coordinate the agency’s activities under the Act. • Locate all agency-controlled historic properties and nominate them to the NRHP.

PAGE 10-4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Ensure that historic properties are not inadvertently transferred, sold, demolished, substantially altered, or allowed to deteriorate significantly. • Document any historic properties that must be damaged or destroyed. • Use available historic properties for acceptable agency purposes when feasible. • Include the costs of preservation activities as eligible project costs (which may include amounts paid to a state government when carrying out preservation responsibilities). • Impose reasonable charges to federal licensees and permittees.

TYPES OF PROPERTIES ELIGIBLE FOR THE NRHP The NRHP includes a diverse collection of properties that represents virtually all aspects of the built environment. The NHPA defines four kinds of properties that can be eligible for the NRHP, and each has a very specific denotation. As stated in the NHPA, the types of resources are:

Building—an edifice created to shelter any form of human activity, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar structure. The designation “building” may refer to a historically related complex such as a courthouse and jail, or a house and barn. A building can include grand, architect-designed residences, churches, schools, or stores, as well as modest, vernacular buildings. Site—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 maintains historical or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure. A site can mark the location of a battlefield, a rock midden Native American village, or an early milling operation. Structure—a work made of interdependent and interrelated parts in a definite pattern of organization. Constructed by man, it is often an engineering project that is large in scale, such as a bridge or trestle. Object—a material thing of functional, aesthetic, cultural, historical, or scientific value that may be, by nature or design, movable yet related to a specific setting or environment. An

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 10-5 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

object can be public art, a mode of transportation, or infrastructural features.

Properties can be considered on an individual basis or grouped together as a historic district. If considered as a group within a historic district, the properties should share a common history and/or physical traits that collectively convey a sense of time and place. A district encompasses a well-defined area that is distinct from its surroundings and whose boundaries are logically established. Typically, the majority (at least 50 percent) of the extant resources within a district must retain sufficient integrity to enhance the district’s historic character and are classified as Contributing Properties. Severely altered historic or nonhistoric resources within a district are classified as Noncontributing Elements and slightly improve, do not improve at all, or detract from the district’s overall historic character.

NRHP CRITERIA To be eligible for the NRHP, a property or historic district must typically be at least 50 years old, must retain integrity, and meet at least one of the four following criteria: A. Be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. Be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Exceptions to the four criteria, known as Criteria Considerations, do exist. Cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; buildings or structures that have been moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; properties that are primarily commemorative in nature; and other properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the NRHP. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts or conform to the following criteria:

PAGE 10-6 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

A. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic importance. B. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event. C. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life. D. A cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events. E. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived. F. A property primarily commemorative in intent of design, age, tradition, or symbolic value that has invested it with its own historical significance. G. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. Properties in the NRHP can be listed at the national, state, or local level of significance and can be honored individually or as part of a historic district. The vast majority of properties included in the NRHP are listed at the local level of significance. In addition, most are recognized for their architectural merits (NRHP Criterion C), although some are considered noteworthy for their historical associations (NRHP Criteria A and B) or for their potential to enhance our understanding of the past (NRHP Criterion D).

INTEGRITY: THE FOUNDATION FOR NRHP ELIGIBILITY Because integrity is a requisite for NRHP eligibility, defining integrity and understanding how it applies to NRHP consideration are critical to effective cultural resource management. The Secretary of the Interior defines integrity as “the ability of a property to convey its significance,” and lists the following Seven Aspects of Integrity as effective guides for its assessment:

Location—the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 10-7 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Design—the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

Setting—the physical environment of a historic property.

Materials—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—the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

Feeling—the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

Association—the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

The seven Aspects of Integrity are based primarily on the physical attributes of a historic resource; however, the NHPA also allows for historically significant properties to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A, B, or D. These properties need not retain their integrity to as high a degree as a property that is significant for its architectural or engineering merits (Criterion C), but they should retain sufficient physical integrity and appear much as they did when they achieved significance.

PAGE 10-8 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

THE SECTION 106 PROCESS

Of all federal legislation dealing with cultural resources issues, Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 is the most important and can have the greatest impact on the operations of any federal agency. Section 106 outlines specific procedures that a federal agency, such as the Department of the Navy, must follow if any planned actions have the potential to affect the integrity of a property listed in or potentially eligible for the NRHP. Key provisions of Section 106 deal with the initiation of the SHPO consultation process, identification and evaluation of those properties that qualify for consideration, the types of actions that can affect integrity, and the procedures to mitigate or offset these actions. The entire Section 106 process can be separated into four steps, each of which is described in greater detail in the following sections. However, note that consultation should be initiated at the outset of any planned project. This will avoid costly delays and will ensure compliance with federal law and regulations. For the purposes of this discussion of the Section 106 process, the term “federal agency” or “agency” refers to the Department of the Navy.

STEP ONE: INITIATE THE SECTION 106 PROCESS Recent changes to the Section 106 regulations, which went into effect in 1999, are designed to foster early consideration of historic properties and increase opportunities for public involvement in the consultation process. The initial step in this process is to establish whether a federal action constitutes an undertaking. By definition, an undertaking includes any project, activity, or program, either funded under the jurisdiction of a federal agency or covered under a federal permit or license. Any undertaking that could potentially alter character-defining elements of a significant cultural resource is subject to the Section 106 process, including consultation with the appropriate SHPO. Renovation/rehabilitation efforts, new construction, or demolition projects are undertakings. Routine maintenance and upkeep procedures are generally not considered undertakings, and are excluded from the Section 106 coordination. At the outset of the Section 106 process, the federal agency must identify the appropriate SHPO and/or THPO (Tribal Historic Preservation Officer). NWIRP Dallas personnel should consult with the Texas Historical Commission, which serves as the Texas SHPO. This agency should be consulted for any Section 106-related activities and/or coordination.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

New Section 106 regulations state that the agency must make a “reasonable and good faith” effort to identify any Native American tribes that should be consulted in the Section 106 process. The identification efforts and consultations with Native American tribes should be started early in the planning process. All consultations must be conducted in a sensitive and respectful manner, keeping in mind the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the federal government. To date, no federally-recognized tribes claim association with the NWIRP Dallas land area, and therefore THPO consultation is not required.

Once the SHPO/THPO has been identified, the federal agency should then consult with the SHPO/THPO to identify other consulting parties having a right to participate in the process. Certain parties, such as Native American tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, local governments, applicants for federal assistance, and individuals or organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking (such as property owners) are entitled to participate in the Section 106 consultation.

The agency should also develop plans for public involvement, reflecting the nature and complexity of the undertaking and its effects on historic properties, the likely public interest in the effects on historic properties, and the relationship of the federal involvement to the overall undertaking. The agency must provide the public with information about an undertaking and its effects on historic properties and seek public comments and input, except where the confidentiality of affected parties is a concern. In some cases, existing agency procedures for public involvement under the National Environmental Policy Act or other programs may satisfy these requirements. Public involvement should continue throughout the Section 106 process.

STEP TWO: IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE HISTORIC PROPERTIES The next step in the Section 106 process determines which properties, if any, are considered to be historic properties. For the Section 106 process, a historic property is defined as any building, structure, object, site, or district included in or eligible for the NRHP.

Identify Historic Properties Information needed to satisfy this step comes from a variety of sources. The SHPO/THPO should be contacted to determine whether there are any properties already listed in the NRHP and whether any archeological and/or comprehensive historic resources surveys have been completed. Although the NRHP has recommended a 50-year-

PAGE 11-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN age threshold, consideration should be given to ensure that the identification process provides a planning window wide enough to serve the activity for the near future. Imposing a strict 50-year cut-off date will guarantee that the survey will be obsolete and out of date the year after its completion. Moreover, the 1991 Department of Defense Appropriation Act directed the DOD to inventory, protect, and conserve “physical and literary property and relics connected with the origins and development of the Cold War.” As such, DOD cultural resource management policy encourages the scrutiny of Cold War-era resources and the consideration of their significance within the context of the Cold War. Every effort should therefore be made to make the identification step be as comprehensive as possible.

At each of the Navy’s installations, the P164 form includes a comprehensive listing of all improvements at the activity. It serves as an effective starting point in the identification process for extant historic resources. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command maintains the P164s and relies on personnel at each activity to update the inventory on an annual basis. The form identifies each property by facility (or building) number and provides basic data (square footage, number of stories, length, width, height) and present use. Although the form provides an accurate listing of improvements at each activity, the descriptive data on the individual buildings are not always correct. For example, buildings constructed before the Navy gained control of the property are sometimes listed as having been built the year they were acquired by or transferred to the Navy. Therefore, the P164 serves as the basis for the identification process but must be supplemented with additional field and research investigations.

Each resource should be photographed and its location plotted on standard maps (general development maps or U.S.G.S. maps). The photographs should become part of a permanent record that documents each resource’s appearance. The images will also serve as an invaluable reference tool to chronicle changes over time. The property’s physical characteristics (exterior materials and finishes, window and door types, method of construction, etc.) should be recorded in a systematic fashion. Facilities files, such as property records and architectural plans, at the Public Works Office and other related departments should also be examined to determine the extent and severity of alterations to the extant historic properties.

Archeological sites, on the other hand, are more difficult to identify and locate. At the outset of any archeological investigation, qualified

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

personnel will conduct a literature and records search to identify any known archeological sites within the project area. Additional field investigations (Phase I survey) are undertaken to locate other sites and/or provide more information on previously recorded sites. A Phase I archeological survey usually consists of shovel tests in areas deemed most likely to contain archeological artifacts and remains. Soil removed during the shovel tests is screened, and any artifacts are identified and catalogued. The type, concentration, and number of recovered artifacts (or lack thereof) help determine and define archeological sites in the project area. The archaeologists will complete state archeological survey forms and will file them and support material to the SHPO and/or a designated repository for curation.

Only qualified individuals who meet professional standards as established by the Department of the Interior should undertake this identification step of the Section 106 process. A historian should supervise research efforts, an architectural historian or historical architect should oversee all field-related activities related to extant historic resources, and an archeologist should coordinate all archeological investigations. The report should include a historic context/background that describes major historical trends and events associated with the activity; an associated property types discussion that groups extant resources into broad categories; a discussion of survey, research, and evaluation methods; bibliographic references; an inventory of all identified properties; and assessments that succinctly justify whether each property is potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

The documentation should be submitted to the SHPO/THPO for comments. If prepared to the satisfaction of the SHPO/THPO, the survey will: • Examine historical factors that contributed to the development of the activity and how they influenced the kinds of resources that were built. • Compare the activity with others in the state or region. • Provide written and/or graphic documentation that substantiates active periods of growth and development in the host community. • Identify the architect and contractors of the facilities and determine how significant these buildings are in the context of their careers.

PAGE 11-4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Document existing physical characteristics of all buildings, structures, objects, and sites at the activity and determine what shared physical and associative qualities may exist to group the resources into broader categories. • Identify alterations and/or additions to the cultural resources and determine why these changes were made. • Determine how physical changes and modifications affect each identified property’s ability to convey its significance. • Establish whether each identified cultural resource is associated with noteworthy historical events, trends, and/or persons. • Determine whether each cultural resource is a unique or good example of its kind or exhibits unusual or noteworthy craftsmanship or design qualities. • Determine whether each cultural resource retains the ability to shed light on an important aspect of the past. • Evaluate whether each cultural resource retains its integrity and meets any of the NRHP Criteria or NRHP Criteria Considerations.

The documentation is initially submitted in draft form to allow the SHPO/THPO to comment on report findings, conclusions, and NRHP recommendations. The draft report should be distributed to any other consulting parties, and all documentation should be made available to the public. If a traditional cultural property is identified in the survey, both the SHPO/THPO and any Native American tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations that attach religious and cultural significance to the property must evaluate its significance. If insufficient documentation is presented, the SHPO/THPO may ask for clarification and/or supplemental documentation before submittal of the final report.

Evaluating Historic Significance The agency, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to identified properties, uses the National Register Criteria to evaluate each property identified in the survey. The results of the evaluation are provided to the SHPO/THPO for review. The SHPO/THPO has 30 days to review the survey documentation. If the agency determines that a property meets the National Register Criteria and the SHPO/THPO agrees, it is considered eligible for the NRHP for Section 106 purposes.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-5 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Conversely, if the agency determines that a property does not meet the Criteria and the SHPO/THPO agrees, then it is considered not eligible. If the agency and the SHPO/THPO do not agree on the NRHP eligibility of a property, then the agency must obtain a determination of eligibility from the National Park Service (NPS). The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the NPS may also request that the agency obtain a determination of eligibility. If a Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to a property of tribal lands does not agree with the agency’s eligibility determination, it may ask the ACHP to request a determination of eligibility from the National Park Service.

When the documentation is finalized and meets SHPO/THPO standards, there are two possible outcomes:

• No Historic Properties Affected. This finding is appropriate when no historic properties are present in the project area, or when there are historic properties present but the project will have no effect on them. No further documentation is required to be submitted to the SHPO/THPO, and the federal agency can proceed with planned actions or activities without involving the SHPO/THPO. • Historic Properties Present and Affected. This finding is appropriate when historic properties will be affected, or may be affected, by the federal undertaking. The federal agency must comply with other provisions of Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966. The agency must consider what effects any federally sponsored projects or activities may have on the integrity of a significant cultural resource and consider mitigative steps to offset these actions (see Step Three of the Section 106 Process: Assessing Effects).

STEP THREE: ASSESSING EFFECTS When a federal undertaking will impact significant historic and archeological resources, the federal agency must determine whether these impacts constitute an adverse effect. An adverse effect occurs when an undertaking diminishes the integrity of the property’s character-defining elements, that is, those physical characteristics that must be present for the property to convey its significance and thus make the property eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The agency must consider both direct and indirect effects. Adverse effects should include any reasonably foreseeable effects that may be cumulative, occur later in time, or occur at a distance from the resource.

PAGE 11-6 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Integrity and Effects Integrity is a fundamental component of the Section 106 process because it is a requisite for NRHP eligibility. The NPS definition of Effect is intentionally broad to allow for myriad actions to be categorized as an effect; however, the Seven Aspects of Integrity serve as the key to understanding how certain activities can have an impact on integrity. Because it is a requisite for NRHP eligibility, it is important to understand how the SHPO applies them in Section 106 assessments.

Integrity of Location is one of the most important factors pertaining to an NRHP-eligible property and generally refers to the site on which the resource was originally built, or the location on which it achieved significance. Integrity of Location links a property to a specific site and represents a vital component in the ability of a resource to convey its significance. If moved, a resource loses an important part of its overall historic character. Resources that were relocated during their period of significance can, however, attain Integrity of Location relative to the new site. Undertakings that produce can affect Integrity of Location include relocating the resource to another site.

Integrity of Design refers to physical elements that define the character of a historic resource and include attributes such as the scale, massing, form, or layout of a resource. Integrity of Design also includes physical elements such as applied architectural ornamentation, the placement of windows and doors, the arrangement of interior spaces, and the type of structural systems and materials employed in the property’s construction. The importance of Integrity of Design varies considerably and depends largely on the area of significance for which a historic resource is eligible for the NRHP. A property significant under NRHP Criterion C for architectural merit derives its significance from its physical characteristics. As such, the property should retain a high degree of its Integrity of Design. Alterations and additions can have a negative impact on the building’s overall Integrity of Design and can compromise the property’s NRHP eligibility. In contrast, a property eligible under NRHP Criterion A or B is significant for its historical associations and does not need to remain unaltered and in pristine condition. However, it must still retain sufficient Integrity of Design to appear much as it did during the property’s period of significance. Undertakings that can adversely effect Integrity of Design include: • Adding new wings and/or rooms.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-7 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Enclosing windows and/or doors. • Changing the size of window and/or door openings. • Removing and/or changing porches and/or chimneys. • Removing distinctive architectural detailing and/or ornamentation. • Changing the roof form and/or pitch.

Integrity of Setting refers to the relationship between a resource and the open spaces that link it to its surroundings. Setting also refers to the physical context and placement in which a resource exists, its orientation, topographical features, landscape elements, vegetation, and/or the arrangement and placement of associated outbuildings. To retain its Integrity of Setting, a resource should be part of the property associated with its historic operation. The removal of associated outbuildings, landscaping, or the introduction of new buildings onto the grounds can have negative impact on Integrity of Setting. Undertakings that can produce Effects most likely to have an impact on the Integrity of Setting include: • Removing or altering existing landscape features that are critical components of the property’s historic character and/or use. • Introducing new and historically inappropriate landscape features. • Disturbing or moving any of the soil within an archeological site. • Paving or covering areas that have been undeveloped or maintained as lawns. • Re-orienting a resource on its existing site. • Constructing new buildings on property historically associated with the resource.

Integrity of Materials is a particularly important Aspect of Integrity because most properties under military stewardship generally present a straightforward character and lack stylistic embellishment or ornamentation. Consequently, the materials used in a resource’s construction, covering, or detailing assume greater significance as character-defining elements and include exterior finishes (wood siding, stucco, masonry, etc.), window frames, doors, chimneys, and

PAGE 11-8 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN porch supports. Removing, replacing, or covering the resource’s original materials can have a negative impact on a resource’s integrity, but this concern is limited primarily to exterior finishes. Only in rare instances- such as the interior of a hangar or a building’s finely detailed lobby-will interior features be an important consideration involving Integrity of Materials. Undertakings that can negatively impact Integrity of Materials include: • Replacing original doors or windows. • Covering original exterior finish (such as wood siding) with synthetic or alternate materials (such as vinyl, aluminum, or stucco). • Using replacement materials that do not match the color, size, and/or texture of original exterior finishes. • Painting masonry surfaces. • Repointing mortar joints with Portland cement, unless it is the content of the historic mortar.

Integrity of Workmanship is the physical evidence that demonstrates the skill of a craftsman’s labors or expertise and can be based on common building traditions, a popular architectural style or form, or innovative work techniques or skills. Integrity of Workmanship is often critical for assessing and evaluating an archeological site that may be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. A recovered artifact that retains its Integrity of Workmanship can illustrate a high level of craftsmanship or resourcefulness of a people or culture. Integrity of Workmanship is also critical for a historic property that is significant under NRHP Criterion C. Such a resource derives significance from its physical traits and attributes, as manifested by architectural detailing and/or ornamentation. These qualities are not only indicative of a particular style or movement, they also illustrate the skills and craftsmanship of a builder, contractor, or carpenter. Conversely, most military properties are utilitarian buildings that typically lack noteworthy stylistic ornamentation and embellishment. Evaluating their Integrity of Workmanship relies more on the extent to which they adhere to original building specifications and construction technology. Military resources that possess Integrity of Workmanship should retain sufficient original materials and methods of construction to relay an understanding of the workmanship and building technology from the historic period. Types of undertakings that can impact Integrity of Workmanship include:

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-9 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Removing or covering architectural ornamentation/embellishment. • Changing salient physical features such as the replacement of architectural ornamentation with modern or anachronistic elements.

Integrity of Feeling is measured by the degree to which the aesthetic and historic character of a resource is conveyed, and one must assess the degree to which the resource expresses its original aesthetic and historic qualities. A property that retains its Integrity of Feeling closely resembles its appearance at the time it achieved significance and remains in a good state of repair. Integrity of Feeling can be compromised by additions, alterations, and other changes to a resource’s historic character. Modifications to the form, massing, layout, use of materials, and orientation are examples of changes that can detract from a property’s Integrity of Feeling. In addition, a resource that retains its other Aspects of Integrity but is in deteriorated condition may have lost its Integrity of Feeling. Undertakings that can negatively impact Integrity of Feeling include: • Installing windows with different configurations than the original. • Painting masonry surfaces. • Using replacement materials of a different color, shape, or texture than original used. • Changing the roof type or pitch. • Erecting a new wing or addition. • Allowing a resource to fall into extreme disrepair. • Encroaching development of land that abuts or adjoins an archeological site.

Integrity of Association links a resource to the historic trends or events through which its significance was attained. Most properties under military stewardship retain their Integrity of Association if they are still used for military purposes and fulfill roles that are the same or similar to their historic functions. Buildings used for entirely different purposes than their intended use are often modified to such an extent that Integrity of Association is compromised. Undertakings that produce Effects that can impact Integrity of Association include:

PAGE 11-10 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Selling a federally owned property. • Transferring a property to another federal agency. • Using a property for an activity unrelated to its original function or use.

Two Types of Effects The federal agency is responsible for determining whether an undertaking produces an adverse effect, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to a property. Any views provided by other consulting parties and the public must be considered by the agency when assessing possible adverse effects. There are two possible findings when assessing effects: Adverse Effect and No Adverse Effect.

Adverse Effects may result from the following actions: • Destruction of, or damage to, a property. • Alteration of a property that is not in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR 68). • Removal of the property from its historic location. • Change of the character of the property’s use, or of character- defining features within the property’s setting. • Addition of intrusive visual, atmospheric, or audible elements. • Neglect of a property (except if such neglect is a recognized quality of a traditional cultural property). • Transfer, lease, or sale of a property out of federal control, without restrictive covenants. Conversely, undertakings that typically result in a determination of no adverse effect might include: • Routine maintenance and repair of a resource that does not alter the historic fabric. • Repair of existing roads in the public right-of-way. • Additions or changes to noncontributing (nonhistoric) properties in an NRHP-eligible historic district that do not alter or negatively impact the historic district’s overall integrity.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-11 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The agency should consult the SHPO/THPO regarding measures to avoid potential Adverse Effects. These measures may include: • Submitting project plans to the SHPO/THPO to ensure consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; • Rehabilitating the historic property to preserve its physical characteristics. • Selecting an alternate site for the construction of a new building or structure. • Changing the design or limiting the scope of the proposed work. • Imposing adequate restrictive covenants at the time of a property’s transfer, lease, or sale, to ensure the long-term preservation of the property’s significance.

NO ADVERSE EFFECT If the agency finds that there is No Adverse Effect to the property, then the agency should notify the SHPO/THPO and all consulting parties and provide them with documentation of its findings. This documentation should include: • A description of the undertaking, specifying the federal involvement and the project’s area of potential effects, including photographs, maps, and drawings, as necessary. • A description of the methodology used to identify historic properties, such as reference to a survey with SHPO- concurrence regarding NRHP eligibility recommendations. • A description of the affected historic properties, including information on the characteristics that qualify them for inclusion in the NRHP. • An explanation of why the finding of No Adverse Effect was appropriate. • Copies or summaries of any views provided by consulting parties and the public. The SHPO/THPO has 30 days upon receipt of the documentation to review the findings. If the SHPO/THPO agrees with the findings, the agency may proceed with the undertaking. Failure to respond within 30 days is considered agreement with the agency’s findings by default.

PAGE 11-12 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

If the SHPO/THPO or any other consulting party disagrees with the agency’s findings within the 30-day review period, then the agency should proceed with further consultations to resolve the disagreement or request the ACHP to review the agency’s findings.

If a Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that attaches religious and cultural significance to a historic property disagrees with determinations within the 30-day review period, they must specify reasons for the disagreement and request further review by the ACHP. In addition, the ACHP, on its own initiative, may request further review of the findings within the initial 30-day review period. The ACHP has an additional 15 days to review the findings, upon receipt of the agency’s documentation. Failure of the ACHP to respond within the 15-day review period is considered agreement with the agency’s findings.

ADVERSE EFFECT If the agency finds an Adverse Effect to a historic property, then consultations should proceed to the next step in the Section 106 process.

STEP FOUR: RESOLVE ADVERSE EFFECTS If there is an Adverse Effect on historic properties, then further consultations are required to develop and evaluate alternatives to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects on the historic properties. The agency should notify the SHPO/THPO and all consulting parties of the adverse effect determination. The agency must also notify the ACHP of the adverse effect. The ACHP should be invited to serve as a consulting party if the agency wishes such ACHP participation, a National Historic Landmark is involved, or a Programmatic Agreement (PA) will be prepared as part of the consultation. The SHPO/THPO, a Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, or any other consulting party may also request that the ACHP participate in the consultation. The ACHP may choose to become a consulting party on its own initiative, following notification from the agency.

The agency should provide the ACHP, SHPO/THPO, and any other consulting parties with documentation of its finding of Adverse Effect. This documentation should include: • A description of the undertaking, specifying the federal involvement and the project’s area of potential effects, including photographs, maps, and drawings, as necessary.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-13 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• A description of the methodology used to identify historic properties. • A description of the affected historic properties, including information on the characteristics that qualify them for inclusion on the National Register. • An explanation of why the finding of Adverse Effect was appropriate. • Copies or summaries of any views provided by consulting parties and the public.

At this point, the agency, the SHPO/THPO, and the ACHP may agree to invite other individuals or organizations to become additional consulting parties. The agency should also make all documentation available to the public and provide an opportunity for members of the public to express their views on resolving adverse effects of the undertaking. As in earlier steps of the Section 106 process, the public involvement should reflect the nature and complexity of the undertaking and its effects on historic properties, and the relationship of the federal involvement to the overall undertaking.

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation of Adverse Effects During this phase of consultation, all the consulting parties should discuss and evaluate alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects to historic properties. The following alternatives are usually considered by the consulting parties to avoid causing Adverse Effects: • Moving the undertaking to an alternate site. • Using an alternative design. • Pursuing an alternative undertaking. • Performing no undertaking at all.

If the alternatives are not acceptable or appropriate, the consulting parties must agree on steps or actions that can mitigate or offset the proposed undertaking, including the following: • Limiting the magnitude of the undertaking. • Rehabilitating, rather than demolishing, some historic properties.

PAGE 11-14 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Adopting a planned program of preservation and maintenance (Programmatic Agreement). • Moving historic properties. • Donating, selling, or leasing historic property. • Documenting a historic property before destroying it. However, loss of historic properties is sometimes unavoidable and, in those cases, there may be no alternative to demolition or no way to mitigate loss of integrity. Such occurrences require the adoption of a formalized agreement (Memorandum of Agreement) that clearly delineates the roles, duties, and responsibilities to be carried out by the principal participants associated with the proposed undertaking.

Memorandum of Agreement Agreements reached during the consultation process are formalized in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA is written to satisfy four primary purposes: • To specify the mitigation or alternatives agreed to by the consulting parties. • To identify who is responsible for carrying out the specified measures. • To address comments of the ACHP. • To serve as an acknowledgment of the consulting parties that the agency has taken into account the effects of the undertaking on the historic property. The MOA functions as a legal document that shows that the agency has satisfied the requirements of Section 106. When writing a clear, concise MOA, the writer should: • Identify the undertaking. • Identify the responsible agency. • Assign duties only to signatory or concurring parties. • Include a “sunset clause” that allows for a periodic review and reevaluation of the MOA. • Avoid using the passive voice. • Include all agreed-upon provisions. • Address the lay reader. • Define acronyms.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-15 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Structure the document logically. • Identify properties clearly and completely. • Cover the entire undertaking. • Provide complete citations. • Use consistent terminology. • Use terms that are consistent with statutory definitions where applicable. • Define terms. • Anticipate future effects. • Include all statutory authorities. The MOA should also contain three parts: a preamble, stipulations, and signatures. The preamble identifies the project, explains the legal authority of the MOA, and lists the parties in the agreement. The stipulations state the agreed-upon mitigation and identify the responsible parties. The signatures of the consulting parties prove that the agency has taken into account the Effects of its undertaking on historic properties and provided the ACHP with an opportunity to comment on the undertaking.

There are three ways to process an MOA: the Three-Party MOA, Two-Party MOA, and Agency-Council MOA.

Three-Party MOA • Signed by the agency, SHPO, and ACHP. • Consultation has no time limit. • Any of the three parties can write the MOA. Two-Party MOA • Signed by the agency and SHPO (if ACHP did not participate in the consultation). • Agency must submit MOA and adverse effect documentation to ACHP as notification of agreement. Agency-Council MOA • Rare means of processing an MOA-only occurs when the SHPO declines to sign an MOA. • May be signed by just the agency and the ACHP.

PAGE 11-16 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Other consulting parties may be invited to sign the MOA with the agency, SHPO, and ACHP. However, if other parties refuse to sign, their refusal does not prevent the ACHP, the SHPO, and the agency from completing the MOA. All consulting parties, regardless of their signatory status, should receive a copy of the MOA. All MOAs must contain provisions for termination and for reconsideration if the undertaking has not been carried out within a specific time period. If the original terms of the MOA cannot be carried out, the signatories consult to make amendments to the agreement. If the agreement is not amended, any signatory may terminate the original MOA. The agency must then execute a new MOA, or alternatively may seek comments from the ACHP.

Failure to Resolve Adverse Effects If the parties fail to resolve the adverse effects resulting from the undertaking, the agency, the SHPO/THPO, or the ACHP can terminate further consultation. Any party that terminates consultation should notify the other parties in writing. If the agency terminates consultation, the head of the agency or other policy-level officials must request comments from the ACHP. If the SHPO terminates consultation, the agency and the ACHP can execute an agency- council MOA without SHPO involvement. If the THPO terminates consultation for an undertaking affecting historic properties on tribal lands, the ACHP will provide comments to the agency. If the ACHP terminates consultation, the ACHP notifies the agency and all consulting parties. The ACHP will also provide its comments to the agency.

ACHP Comments Prior to issuing its comments, the ACHP provides an opportunity for all parties to give their views on the undertaking and consultation process. The ACHP issues its comments within 45 days. The ACHP comments are provided to the agency head, with copies provided to the agency’s Federal Preservation Officer and all other consulting parties. The ACHP may also issue comments for any undertaking, at the time the agency executes an MOA. If the ACHP provides comments following termination of consultation, the head of the agency must take the ACHP’s comments into account when reaching a final decision on the undertaking. The agency head must also document this decision and prepare a written summary of the decision. The summary must be provided to the ACHP and all consulting parties. In addition, the public must be notified of the decision, and a copy of the summary made available for public inspection.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-17 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Special Situations Occasionally, an agency may act on an undertaking in response to an emergency condition. The ACHP encourages agencies to develop procedures for taking historic properties into account during a disaster or emergency. If approved by the ACHP, these procedures would apply during any disaster or emergency declared by the President, a governor, or a tribal government, in lieu of the standard Section 106 process. An agency may propose an emergency undertaking as an essential and immediate response to a disaster or emergency declared by the President, a governor, a tribal government, or another immediate threat to life or property. Without prior procedures in place, either through a Programmatic Agreement or through the emergency provisions discussed earlier, the agency must notify the ACHP, the SHPO/THPO, and any applicable Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization of its proposed actions and give them an opportunity to comment within seven days, if time permits. The emergency provisions apply only to undertakings that will be implemented within 30 days of the emergency. The agency may request an extension of the 30-day limit. Immediate rescue and salvage operations to preserve life or property are exempt from the provisions of Section 106.

Unexpected Late Discovery Unexpected discoveries of historic properties, especially those made during projects that involve excavation or other ground disturbance, occasionally occur and often have unforeseen effects. When a historic property is discovered after an undertaking has begun, the agency has several options for dealing with the discovery: • Compliance with standard Section 106 process - the agency can request consultation to develop an MOA, if the project has not been approved or construction has not begun. • Expedited Section 106 process - If the project has been approved and construction has already begun, the agency should develop a plan for handling the property and notify the ACHP, the SHPO/THPO, and any applicable Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization of its intentions within two days of the discovery. The notified parties will provide comments within two days. The agency must take their recommendations into account and provide a report of the actions when they are completed. • AHPA compliance- if the property retains archeological value, it is subject to the requirements of the AHPA, with which the agency can comply instead of Section 106. The agency must

PAGE 11-18 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

give the SHPO and any Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization that might attach religious and cultural significance to the property an opportunity to comment, and must provide the ACHP, SHPO/THPO, and the Native American tribe or Native Hawaiian organization with a report after work has been completed. When a discovery occurs on tribal land, the agency must obtain concurrence of the tribe on the proposed action and must comply with all applicable tribal regulations and procedures with the tribe during the implementation of any of these requirements. To avoid project delays caused by unexpected discoveries, agencies should develop a plan for treating such properties prior to beginning work on a project. Such plans should be documented during the review process and included in MOAs.

ALTERNATIVES TO STANDARD SECTION 106 REVIEW

Counterpart Procedures The agency may develop counterpart procedures that substitute for 36 CFR 800, in consultation with the ACHP. Consultations may also include SHPO/THPOs, Native American tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations, as appropriate. These procedures must be reviewed and approved by the ACHP.

Routine Cases For routine cases, the ACHP can: • Exempt a program or category of undertakings from review under Section 106. • Establish standard methods of treatment for a category of undertakings, effects, or historic properties. • Issue program comments on an entire category of undertakings, rather than conducting individual reviews.

Programmatic Agreement The Programmatic Agreement (PA) is a special type of agreement, typically developed for a complex undertaking or for a series of undertakings. PAs are appropriate when: • Effects are similar and repetitive, or are multi-state or regional in scope. • Effects cannot be fully determined prior to approval.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-19 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Non-federal parties are delegated major decision-making responsibilities. • Routine management activities are undertaken at federal installations.

To develop a PA, the ACHP and agency must consult. The consultation should also involve (as appropriate) SHPO/THPOs, the National Council of SHPOs, Native American tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, other federal agencies, and members of the public. The agency will notify the public and arrange involvement appropriate to the subject matter and scope of the program. The ACHP, agency, and other appropriate consulting parties will sign and execute the PA. An approved PA satisfies the agency’s Section 106 responsibilities for individual undertakings carried out in accordance with the agreement. PAs are applicable on tribal lands only if signed by the THPO, tribe, or their designated representative. If the agency fails to carry out the PA or the agreement is terminated, the agency must comply with Section 106 on a case-by-case basis.

Concurrent Review With The National Environmental Policy Act The new Section 106 regulations provide a process allowing agencies to use an Environmental Document (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to comply with the Section 106 process. The goal is to simplify the often concurrent NEPA and Section 106 review processes, while ensuring that historic properties are taken into account in the NEPA process. If the agency decides to use an EA or EIS for Section 106 review, it must notify the SHPO/THPO and ACHP in advance. The agency must identify consulting parties, historic properties, and project effects. The agency must also consult with identified consulting parties regarding the project’s effects, possible project alternatives, and any measures needed to mitigate for possible adverse effects. Public involvement must take place, using the agency’s NEPA procedures.

Under this alternate process, an EA, draft EIS, or EIS must be submitted to the consulting parties for review. If a consulting party objects to the performance standards of the document or to the proposed resolution of effects, and the ACHP agrees with the objection, the alternate review process is terminated. The agency must then execute an MOA or seek ACHP comments, as required under the standard Section 106 process.

PAGE 11-20 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

If no objections to the document are raised, the alternate process may continue, with the agency’s Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) specifying all mitigation measures. Any mitigation measures must be adopted by the agency through a binding commitment.

Native American Tribe and Native Hawaiian Consultation For any of the alternate processes, the appropriate THPO must be consulted, where appropriate, provided that the tribe has formally assumed Section 106 responsibilities of the SHPO on tribal lands. In addition, other tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations must be consulted if a program alternative would affect properties on tribal lands or religious and cultural properties off tribal lands.

IMPORTANT CONTACTS FOR INFORMATION & COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE

FEDERAL LEVEL POINTS-OF-CONTACT

Engineering Field Division South, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Historic Preservation Officer, Code 064RJ P.O. Box 19100 North Charleston, SC 29419 Telephone: (843) 820-5990 Fax: (843) 820-7472

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation – Eastern Office of Project Review 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 809 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 606-8503 Fax: (202) 606-8647 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.achp.gov

National Trust for Historic Preservation 1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 673-4000

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-21 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

STATE LEVEL POINTS-OF-CONTACT

Texas Historical Commission (Texas SHPO) P. O. Box 12276 Austin, Texas 78711 512-463-6100

NAGPRA INFORMATION & CONTACTS The United States Department of the Interior recognizes 556 tribal entities in the 48 contiguous states and in Alaska that are eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs by virtue of their status as Native American tribes. Congress established recognition of organized, tribal entities through Section 104 of the Act of 2 November 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792).

The Bureau of Indian Affairs updated its list of federally-recognized tribal entities on 30 December 1998 (63 FR 71941). The listed tribal entities are acknowledged to have the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Native American tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of such tribes.

For questions regarding whether a local tribal entity is a federally recognized tribe and has a THPO representing the tribe’s interests, first check the following websites. Checking more than one site demonstrates a “good faith effort” on the part of the activity during consultation efforts:

www.doi.gov/bia/tribes/telist.00.html http://www.doi.gov/bia/bar/index1.htm http://www.doi.gov/bia/bar/indexA.htm

If you do not have access to the Internet or need further clarification on a tribal listing, contact the local office of Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Division at:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Eastern Region Attn: Franklin Keel, Regional Director 3701 N. Fairfaix Drive MS: 260-VASQ Arlington, VA 22203 Telephone: (703) 235-2571 Fax: (703) 235-8610

PAGE 11-22 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The local office of Indian Affairs will have the current listing of federally recognized tribes and whether that tribe has a THPO. They may also provide you with the telephone, address, and email of the THPO for the tribe in question. There are also websites that list the names and addresses of THPOs. These sites also contain maps of Native American Lands that allow you to check whether a geographic location is claimed by a registered Native American tribe. These sites also allow you to download versions of the maps in Adobe Acrobat format, for free. Some good resources on the Internet regarding THPOs and are: http://www.gdsc.bia.gov/products/default.htm

As a last resort or to report a complaint, call the main number of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, headquartered in Washington, D.C.:

Bureau of Indian Affairs Attn: Daisy West, BIA Division of Tribal Government Services, MS-4631-MIB 849 C Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Telephone: (202) 208-2475

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 11-23

I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS

FACILITY 93: SHIPPING & MANUFACTURING BUILDING

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Constructed in 1953, Facility 93 is rectangular-plan, blackout-type building in the northwest part of NWIRP Dallas. The resource sits atop a level terrain, with paving on all sides. A canopy, attached to the building’s north facade, forms a breezeway that connects Facility 93 to Facility 6.

Figure 12-1. Facility 93. Facility 93 is two stories in height and measures 503’-0” in length and 152’-0” in width. Loading docks are adjacent to the facility’s south, north, and west facades. The building rests atop a raised concrete slab foundation and utilizes steel-frame construction. Exterior walls are brick with a concrete base. The building’s low-pitched gabled roof consists of lightweight concrete decking, insulation board, and built-up roofing materials supported by structural steel framing.

Exterior entries include horizontal tracked, steel-plate doors on the north and south facades; hinged single metal doors on the north, south, and west facades; and overhead rubber doors on the north, west, and south facades. The building was designed to blackout standards and has no windows.

The interior space of Facility 93’s first floor is divided into three separate rooms by 14”- thick partition walls. The westernmost room and the easternmost room measure approximately 150’-0” north/south x 150’-0” east/west while the middle room measures 150’-0” north/south x 200’-0” east/west.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND In the summer of 1952, construction began on additional buildings and structures at NIRAP Dallas (now NWIRP Dallas). The plant’s contractor, Chance Vought Aircraft, funded the construction effort as part of its Spring Building Program that expanded the plant to meet Cold War manufacturing requirements on jet aircraft and missiles.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Dallas- based Architect and Engineering firm Corgan, Lane & Associates designed Facility 93 as a shipping, warehouse, and manufacturing building. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks, 8th District, located in New Orleans, Louisiana, approved the architectural drawings submitted by Corgan and authorized the construction of Facility 93.

General contractor James Stewart & Company of New York began construction of Facility 93 on 1 June 1952. Vought allocated more than $1.3 million on the construction of Facility 93, which Corgan, Lane & Associates designed specifically to meet the company’s need for a large and conveniently located warehouse, manufacturing, receiving and shipping building. The one-story, 78,000-plus square foot masonry structure was built between the railroad sidings on the south side of Plant “B” (Facility 6). The building’s location provided Vought with railroad loading docks on the building’s north and south sides, as well as easy access into Facility 6’s manufacturing area. Vought used Facility 93 to ship all finished products manufactured at NWIRP Dallas – such as the Regulus I and II missiles, Cutlass, Pirate, Crusader, and Corsair II jet aircraft – to the Navy. Some products were loaded into railroad cars for shipping, while others were boxed and shipped via metal flatbed containers (specially designed to hold a product steady during shipment) by either commercial truck or rail. Vought also utilized Facility 93 to receive and then ship subassembly work back to the prime contractor. Corgan, Lane & Associates designed, and James Stewart & Company constructed, a loading dock with special features for shipping and receiving Lockheed and Boeing nose sections. Internally, the building was equipped with bridge cranes and a monorail system for moving materials from one end of the building to another (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4).

Since its completion in 1953, Facility 93’s function has not changed. As a shipping and receiving center, Facility 93 was never dedicated or associated with any one product manufactured at NWIRP Dallas, but rather with all finished products and subassemblies. In addition to maintaining its function, Facility 93 also retains its original physical characteristics. The only major repair work to Facility 93 was a partial roof replacement in the spring of 1994 and an exterior and interior paint job. Both of these projects occurred plant-wide as part of an overall rehabilitation effort at NWIRP Dallas when Northrop Grumman took over as operator/contractor of the complex. Facility records at NWIRP Dallas indicate that the size of Facility 93 is still 78,091 square feet and valued at $1,318,19

PAGE 12-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 93 is a shipping and manufacturing building that is directly supportive of manufacturing activities at NWIRP Dallas. One of the many buildings erected during Chance Vought’s Spring Building Program (1952-1956), it has always been used for shipping, receiving, storage, and minor manufacturing, and since then, has played only a supportive role in the plant’s overall operation and mission. Facility 93 is virtually unaltered and thus retains much of its historic character and integrity. Historical investigation for this study have not uncovered any information suggests that Facility 93 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War, and is not eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A or B. Although Facility 93 retains much of its historic character and integrity, it is a typical illustration of an industrial-support facility and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C”. In conclusion, Facility 93 is not eligible for the NRHP because it has no significant historical associations or architectural/engineering merits.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 94: STRUCTURES TEST LAB

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 94, built in 1954, is a hangar-type laboratory in the northwest part of NWIRP Dallas. It is directly west of Facility 49 and is connected to the northwest corner of Plant “B” (Facility 6). The facility rests atop a level terrain within a fenced complex of laboratory facilities and associated support buildings. A large paved parking lot is directly west of the facility.

The three-story, irregular-plan resource measures 356’-0” in length, 159’-0” in width, and houses a total of 88,647 square feet of usable interior space. The building’s foundation is a concrete slab-on-grade. Exterior walls are reinforced concrete up to 5’-6” above the first finished floor, then insulated vertical box-rib steel panels to the roofline. Facility 94 has a flat roof constructed of built-up roofing Figure 12-2. Facility 94. materials.

The facility’s primary entrance is a vertical tracked metal door on its south facade, which features 4-panels with an integral hinged panel. Additional door types include horizontal tracked metal doors on the building’s south facade; hinged, paired metal doors on the east and north facades; and hinged, single metal doors on the east facade. Also present are hinged paired metal doors with vision panels on the building’s east and north facades. A canopy hood each set of doors. Because the building was designed to black-out standards it has no windows.

Facility 94’s interior space houses a number of functions primarily related to the testing structural components of F-18, F-14, and B-1 jet aircraft. The building’s first floor interior spaces include a large, open test hangar, a universal test floor, an x-ray lab, a test machine storage room, a toolcrib, a steel storage and rigging room, a bathroom, a test machine room, and a machine shop. The facility’s second floor is divided into two distinct areas. A suite of offices is in the northern portion of the building. The southern portion of the second floor contains two labs, two bathrooms, a camera room, a darkroom, a machine shop, and a storage room. A corridor, running east/west,

PAGE 12-4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN divides the building’s third floor into two distinct areas. The southern half of the third floor functions as a hydraulics equipment storage area. The northern portion of the building functions as a hydraulics test lab.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND In the summer of 1952, construction began on additional buildings and structures at NIRAP Dallas (now NWIRP Dallas), an aircraft and missile manufacturing plant owned by the Department of the Navy and located in Dallas/Grand Prairie, Texas. The contractor of the plant, Chance Vought Aircraft, funded the construction effort – called the Spring Building Program – to expand the plant to meet Cold War manufacturing requirements on jet aircraft and missiles. Designed by the Dallas-based Architect and Engineering firm Corgan, Lane & Associates, Facility 94 was designed to be immediately accessible to Facility 6, the main manufacturing space at the complex. Stokes, Cobb, & Wilson Consulting Engineers of Dallas served as the structural engineers for Facility 94, which had to be constructed of steel in order for it to adjoin Facility 6. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks, 8th District, located in New Orleans, Louisiana, approved the architectural drawings submitted by Corgan, Lane & Associates and Stokes, Cobb, & Wilson and also authorized the construction, which was carried out by Carpenter Brothers Construction Company of Dallas.

Stokes, Cobb, & Wilson worked with Corgan to design Facility 94 as a hangar-type laboratory with steel columns, steel trussing, and “Robertson” metal siding, which matched existing Plant “B” structures constructed during World War II. Mosher Steel Company provided the steel used in Facility 94’s construction and Stokes, Cobb, & Wilson supervised all work related to the steel frame, columns, and trusses. With the steel work complete, Carpenter Brothers began general construction of Facility 94 in spring 1952. Vought invested $1,756,632 on the construction of Facility 94, a structures lab, capable of testing all the different components of aircraft and missile casings. The three-story, 88,647-square foot steel structure was constructed immediately west of Facility 49 and connected to the northwest corner of Plant “B” (Facility 6). The building’s location provided Vought with convenient access to both the engineering offices within Facility 49 and the final production areas of Facility 6. Vought’s first use of Facility 94 was to test the structural components of the Regulus II missile design. This was made of varying composite materials and metals, including Metallite, a Vought- developed product used on many of the company’s jet

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-5 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

aircraft. The interior of Facility 94 was large enough to accommodate the testing of multiple design-related issues on both missiles and aircraft. During its first years of operation, Vought also used Facility 94 to help design and test the structural system of its F8U Crusader prior to entering into full- scale production of the design. Facility 94 could accommodate the testing of pieces or entire assemblies of both jets and missiles, simulating strains on the outer structures of products to increase durability, flight properties and characteristics, and the performance of the item under varying weather conditions, among other things (Chance Vought News April 1952: 4; Chance Vought News June 1953:1).

Since its completion in 1954, Facility 94’s function has gone unchanged. As a structures laboratory, Facility 94 was never dedicated or associated with any one product manufactured at NWIRP Dallas, but its funding and construction request was directly tied to the Regulus missile program and jet aircraft development. After the end of the Regulus program in the early 1960s, Vought utilized the hangar-type lab to accommodate the testing of all the company’s future products, including the F8U Crusader and A-7A Corsair II. During the 1970 and 1980s, Facility 94 proved a very flexible and versatile building as its interior was modified to accommodate the testing of multiple projects at one time. These projects included aircraft, missile and rocket programs for the Navy, Air Force and NASA, such as the Scout Rocket, Lance Missile, Tactical Missile, and Multiple Launch Rocket System programs. This work was conducted in the high bay area of Facility 94 and alongside the testing of Boeing 747 tail assemblies, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 tailplanes and elevators, and Lockheed P-3 Orion control surfaces and landing gear. In 1979, LTV received a large contract to complete the intermediate and rear fuselage sections of the Rockwell B1-B bomber and became the principal airframe builder on the Northrop Grumman B-2 stealth bomber. Work on these two projects began in 1981 and dominated the type of testing that occurred in Facility 94 throughout the end of the Cold War, and, to some extent, still occurs today. Currently, the tenant at NWIRP Dallas, Vought Aircraft Industries, utilizes Facility 94 to test the landing gear of the F-18 and F-14 jet aircraft and conduct variable wing sweep tests on the B-1 (www.voughtaircraft.com).

Even today, Facility 94 continues in its intended function as a structural test laboratory for products manufactured at NWIRP Dallas. Class II property records indicate that Facility 94 underwent improvement in 1970 and probably reflected interior modifications

PAGE 12-6 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN necessary to accommodate the testing of different products. Current Department of the Navy P164 records show that Facility 94 has maintained its original square-footage and Class II records value the lab and its contents at $12,178,730. The only major repair or renovation work to Facility 94 after 1970 was an exterior and interior paint job, which occurred plant-wide and reflected a change in tenancy from LTV to Northrop Grumman.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 94, a hangar-type structural laboratory, is an integral part of the research, design, and development processes at NWIRP Dallas. One of the many buildings erected during Chance Vought’s Spring Building Program (1952-1956), it has always been used to test the durability and structural components of the contractor’s products prior to entering into full-scale Figure 12-3. Historic photograph of Facility 94. production in either Facility 1 or 6. Facility 94 is virtually unaltered and thus retains much of its historic character and integrity. Historical investigation for this study uncovered that Facility 94 played a critical role in the development of the Regulus II missile program, the F8U Crusader, and the A-7A Corsair II. All three of these projects were designed and developed exclusively at NWIRP Dallas during the Cold War and were nationally significant aerospace products. In later years, Facility 94 played an important manufacturing role in the B-1B and B-2 subassembly programs. Because Facility 94 retains much of its historic character and integrity, the structural laboratory at NWIRP is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “A”.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-7 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 95: TEST CELL BUILDING

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 95 is a rectangular-plan manufacturing building constructed in 1954, during the Spring Building Program at NWIRP Dallas. The building rests on a level terrain in the east-central portion of the plant, directly north of Facility 179.

The one-story resource measures 45’-0” in width and 182’-0” in length and houses a total of 8190 square feet of usable interior space. The facility utilizes a raised-slab and slab- on-grade concrete foundation. It has a reinforced- concrete structural system and exterior walls are concrete. Facility 95’s flat roof consists of ribbed metal decking, rigid insulation boards, and built-up roofing Figure 12-4. Facility 95. materials. Roof drains lead to downspouts on the building’s north facade. Additional exterior wall features include louvered vents on the south facade and metal ladders on the west facade.

The building’s primary entrances are horizontal tracked, six-panel, metal doors on its south and north facades. Secondary exterior entries include hinged, single metal doors on the building’s north and south facade and a set of hinged, paired metal doors on its south facade. Fixed 4-light windows are on the building’s south facade.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Constructed between 1953 and 1954, Facility 95 was part of the Chance Vought’s Spring Building Program and the overall expansion of NIRAP Dallas (now NWIRP Dallas) to meet the company’s Cold War manufacturing requirements on jet aircraft and missiles. The Dallas-based engineering firm of R.C. Stokes designed Facility 95 to test and qualify missile engines installed in both the Regulus I and II programs. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks, 8th District, located in New Orleans, Louisiana, approved the architectural drawings submitted by R.C. Stokes and authorized the construction of Facility 95. O’Rourke Construction Company, also of Dallas,

PAGE 12-8 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN conducted the actual construction efforts under the close supervision of both the Department of the Navy and Chance Vought engineers.

Designed by R.C. Stokes to be sturdy, able to support tons of heavy equipment and machinery, and able to tolerate potential explosions, Facility 95 was constructed of steel, concrete, and brick masonry. The two-story, 8,190 square foot building originally cost $215,180.09 and had four test cell chambers and two control rooms. Facility 95’s second floor contained office and engineering space to monitor and analyze the missile engine testing that occurred in the first floor test cell chambers. Test cells consist of both the power and control mechanisms for guided missiles and can be either self-contained rocket motors or air-breathing jet engines. The equipment and machinery installed at Facility 95 was capable of testing both types of engines as well as the outside booster charges from tube launchers (Guided Missiles 1997: np).

The Department of the Navy selected and provided the missile engines to Chance Vought, which the company received through Facility 93, (the Shipping and Manufacturing building), and then moved to Facility 106, (the Engine Assembly Building). Following engine assembly, Chance Vought employees installed the engine into the missile body in Facility 97, and then tested and qualified it in Facility 95’s test cells. Chance Vought engineers tested four pairs of Regulus missiles at a time and utilized the adjoining first floor control rooms to operate the engine via the radio control unit assigned to the production missile. By using the assigned radio control unit, Vought engineers could verify the effectiveness of the control mechanism simultaneous with engine qualifications. Once the company had 20 consecutive passes without failure, the entire production line of missiles would be cleared for delivery to the Navy.

Architectural plans in the Engineering Offices at NWIRP Dallas indicate that in 1957 the test cells were remodeled in order to better accommodate testing of the Regulus II missile, which was entering full-scale production. Rework required mechanical redesign of the test cell unit itself - both equipment & mountings. Lee & Emmert, Architect- Engineers from Dallas, Texas, were hired to carry out the necessary rework as well as install four new fuel tanks and associated piping at Facility 95 (Photo). This work occurred inside Facility 95 and on lands immediately adjacent the building. Lee & Emmert completed the rework on Facility 95’s test cells in 1958. Other than the 1957- 1958 modifications, Facility 95 is virtually unchanged and it remains a 8,190 square foot industrial building.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-9 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Located the southernmost portion of the plant, Facility 95, the Test Cell Building, is immediately west of Facility 97, the Engineer Flight Test Hangar. During the Cold War years, the functions of the two buildings were closely linked with the Regulus I and II missile programs. Facility 95 can also be associated with the Scout Rocket, Lance Missile, and Cruise missile production programs that subsequent contractors manufactured at NWIRP Dallas in the latter years of the Cold War. In the mid-1980s, Ling-TEMCO Vought (LTV) placed Facility 95 in a caretaker status. All equipment, machinery, and office furniture were removed and the building ceased to be an integral part of manufacturing process at NWIRP Dallas. The previous contractor, Northrop Grumman, and the current contractor, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, both use(d) Facility 95 as storage.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 95 was one of 17 buildings constructed at NWIRP Dallas by Chance Vought during its Spring Building Program (1952-1956). The test cell building for the Regulus I and II missile programs, Facility 95 played an important role in Chance Vought’s development of guided missile technology.

Figure 12-5. Historic photograph of Facility 95. Furthermore, Facility 95 was critical in the plant’s successful operation throughout the Cold War and essential to Chance Vought’s successful production of Regulus Missiles. Though Facility 95’s historical associations are strong, during the past two decades the contractors at NWIRP Dallas have permitted the slow deterioration of the building to the point that it no longer resembles its period of significance. The lack of maintenance and the removal of its machinery and equipment further impacts Facility 95’s historical integrity. Finally, Facility 95 has not been used in its intended capacity for nearly two decades and is no longer usable as a test cell building. Because Facility 95 is hardly recognizable to its period of significance and as the items most closely associated with the building’s history have been removed, Facility 95 is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion “A”.

PAGE 12-10 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 97: ENGINEER FLIGHT TEST HANGAR

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 97, constructed in 1954, is a large manufacturing building in the southeast portion of NWIRP Dallas. The facility sits on a level terrain, southeast of Facility 33 and has paving on all sides. Facility 97, like most other resources at the plant, is of straightforward utilitarian design and lacks stylistic ornamentation or embellishment.

Facility 97 is four stories in height Figure 12-6. Facility 97. and measures 213’-0” in width and 253’-0” in length. A 396’-0” long ramp area was added to the facility’s south facade in 1955. The building rests atop a reinforced- concrete foundation and features a steel-frame structural system. Facility 97 has a multi-level flat roof constructed of ribbed metal decking, insulation board, and built-up roofing materials. Exterior walls are reinforced concrete up to 5’-6’ above the first finished floor, then insulated vertical box-rib steel panels on structural steel framing to the roofline.

The facility’s primary entries are metal canopy doors, located on its north and south facades. Each of these doors feature an integral hinged panel and sliding panels. The building’s secondary entry is a set of hinged, paired metal doors with vision panels on its east facade. Windows for Facility 97 are industrial, steel-sash units and fixed aluminum- frame units. Additional exterior wall openings include louvered vents.

The resource houses a total of 70,634 square feet of usable interior space. Facility 97’s primary interior space is a large open “high bay” area that is currently used for general materials storage. To the east of the high bay is a two-level mezzanine that currently houses administrative offices. A primary feature of the hangar interior space is a massive underground scale that forms much of the high bay’s floor. Although the scale is currently on tin use, throughout the Cold War Era, it was used to weigh and qualify Regulus I and II missiles as well as the F8U Crusader and A-7 Corsair II jet aircraft.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-11 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

HISTORIC BACKGROUND On 18 June 1953, construction began on Facility 97, a $1.7 million jet aircraft and guided missile hangar used initially to test and store production-quality Regulus missiles. One of 17 buildings constructed at NIRAP Dallas (now NWIRP Dallas) as part of Chance Vought Aircraft’s Spring Building Program, Facility 97 was designed by Harwood K. Smith & Joseph M. Miles, an Architect – Engineer firm based in Dallas. The more than 70,000-square-foot hangar was not of standardized construction, but unique to NWIRP Dallas and designed to the specifications and needs of Vought. The four-story hangar contained a high bay area, electronics test areas, storage, engineering offices, and workroom space for expanded production on the Regulus missile. Vought required this hangar to satisfy Cold War manufacturing demands on the weapons system. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks, 8th District, located in New Orleans, Louisiana, approved the architectural drawings and authorized the construction, which was carried out byO’Rourke Construction Company and completed in January 1954 (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1-2).

Originally, Vought used Facility 97 exclusively in support of the Regulus missile program. Regulus missiles leaving the Plant “B”, Facility 6 production lines were taken to Facility 97 for final installation of the missile’s internal avionics components and the individual testing of all electronic systems. Vought Retiree Club members indicated that installation of the missile engine also occurred in Facility 97. Following both of these complex processes, Vought employees moved the production missiles to flight testing, which occurred in Facility 95 and included simulation of engine starting-up, take-off, climb, cruise, and let-down simulation. Once the missile passed testing, it was moved back to Facility 97 for any rework and the official weigh-in. A large commercial scale was built into the floor of Facility 97 to weigh and certify production models. Once all final touches were complete, the missiles were shipped through Facility 93 in specially designed cargo carriers that prevented the Regulus from shifting and possibly damaging its delicate circuitry. Vought delivered the missiles to the Navy either by rail or on commercial trucks (Chance Vought News June 1953: 1-2).

In the early 1960s, the Navy cancelled Vought’s Regulus missile program and the contractor dedicated Facility 97 to electronic and avionics repair as well as testing of the company’s jet aircraft programs. At the time, Vought had just begun full-scale production on its F8U Crusader and used Facility 97 to store the completed jets

PAGE 12-12 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN prior to and following airborne testing at nearby Hensley Field. Vought employees, including a former flight test pilot, indicated that the aircraft would be taken outside Facility 97 and moved into an engine run-up shelter for pre-flight operations. Following clearance, the jet was then moved to Hensley Field for airborne operations. An octagonal flight control room on Facility 97’s southeast corner permitted the contractor to observe airborne flights from the building’s fourth floor tower. During an interview with Vought Retiree Club members, former engineers Figure 12-7. Historic photograph of Facility 97. recalled that some electronics and avionics installation on the F8U Crusader and the A-7 Corsair II occurred in Facility 97 as well as pre- delivery weight and certification.

Department of the Navy Class II property records do not exist for Facility 97, and contractor-generated property files do not indicate any significant renovation or alteration. Facility 97 retains its original form, appearance, and location and is still 70,634 square feet. Charles Hampton, one of the Navy’s representatives at NWIRP Dallas, reported that the only major work completed at Facility 97 in the past decade has been interior and exterior painting, which occurred plant- wide and reflected a change in tenancy. Currently, the majority of Facility 97 is used as a storage space for high volume quantities of steel, metal, and composites in various shapes and sizes. They are stored in tall steel shelves similar to those found in Facility 93 and Facility 94, except in much higher quantities and volume. The varying shapes and sizes of the materials require that they be moved with a forklift to the manufacturing spaces at NWIRP Dallas. The eastern portion of the hangar is unoccupied and is used to store discarded office partitions.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Since its completion in 1954, Facility 97, a hangar, has served as an integral part of the manufacturing, testing, and certification processes at NWIRP Dallas. One of the many buildings erected during Chance Vought’s Spring Building Program (1952-1956), it has not always been used in its intended capacity, but has strong historical

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-13 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

associations to the Chance Vought’s most successful Cold War products – the Regulus missile programs, the F8U Crusader, and A-7 Corsair II. In the mid-1950s, work on avionics and electrical systems were considered experimental and cutting-edge work. The contractor isolated the installation and testing of the control and guidance systems for the Regulus to Facility 97, and this work did not occur elsewhere in the plant. When work on the Regulus ended, the function of the building was modified to installation, repair, and testing of avionics on jet aircraft, such as the Crusader and Corsair II. Facility 97 has not been modified or altered significantly and retains its integrity to a high degree. A comparison of historic photographs with current images further illustrates the building’s integrity. Historical investigation for this study uncovered that Facility 97 played a critical role in the manufacture of both the Regulus I and II missile programs, the F8U Crusader, and the A- 7 Corsair II. All three of these projects were designed and developed exclusively at NWIRP Dallas during the Cold War era and were nationally significant aerospace products. Because Facility 97 retains much of its historic character and integrity, the engineer flight test hangar at NWIRP Dallas is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “A”.

PAGE 12-14 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 98: WATER PUMP HOUSE (POTABLE)

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Constructed in 1954, Facility 98 is a rectangular-plan pumphouse in the central portion of NWIRP Dallas. The one-story structure is 43’-0” long and 23’-0” wide. It utilizes load- bearing masonry construction and rests atop a reinforced-concrete slab. The structure has a flat roof constructed of built-up roofing materials. Roof drains lead to downspouts on the structure’s east facade. Exterior walls are brick. Facility 98’s Figure 12-8. Facility 98. primary entrance is a set of hinged, paired doors on its west facade. These doors are metal and feature glass vision panels. An additional entrance, a single hinged metal door, is located on the structure’s north facade. Windows are steel-sash, projected panel units. Additional exterior wall openings include louvered vents on the building’s north facade.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 98, a potable Water Pump house, was constructed in 1954 as part of an activity- wide Spring Building Program (1952-1956) that the contractor requested in order to meet Cold War production demands. An unknown architectural firm and construction company performed the work on Facility 98; however, it is probable that the Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans, supplied the drawings through its program of standardized plan construction. The 3,250 GM water tank cost the Department of the Navy $138,000. No Class II property records exist for Facility 98 and there are no contractor-generated property records either; therefore, limited information exists as to construction or renovation work done to this building since its completion. Department of the Navy P164 records indicate that the tank is still 3,250 GM and continues in its intended function as a potable water storage tank.

Throughout its history and various tenants, Facility 98 has always been used to pump drinking water throughout NWIRP Dallas. Facility 98 works in conjunction with Facilities 99 and 100, NWIRP Dallas’ potable water storage tanks. Drinking water stored in Facilities 99 and 100 are pumped via Facility 98, which provides employees with potable water.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-15 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 98 serves solely as a water pumping station, which is a support function and not part of NWIRP Dallas’ direct mission. Even though the building is reflective of its period of design and construction, it is a nondescript, industrial building that is not unique to NWIRP Dallas and probably appears at other Navy-owned installations. Furthermore, Facility 98 is a typical illustration of a standardized support facility and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C”. Furthermore, historical investigation for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 98 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. This factor negates Facility 98’s eligibility for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion “A”.

PAGE 12-16 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 99: WATER STORAGE TANK (POTABLE)

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 99 is a circular water storage tank in the central portion of NWIRP Dallas. This 71’-0” long, 26’-0” wide structure has a storage capacity of 500,000 gallons. The facility’s foundation is a concrete slab-on-grade and both its structural system and exterior walls are concrete. Facility 99 has a domed roof, constructed of concrete. Access to the structure is through a hatch on its roof. The facility has no doors or windows. Figure 12-9. Facility 99.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 99, a potable Water Storage Tank, was constructed in 1954 as part of an activity- wide Korean War expansion that was undertaken in order for the contractor to meet Cold War production demands. An unknown architectural firm and construction company performed the work on Facility 99; however, it is probable that the Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans, supplied the drawings through its program of standardized plan construction. The 500,000-gallon water tank cost the Department of the Navy $32,354. No Class II property records exist for Facility 99 and there are no contractor-generated property records either; therefore, limited information exists as to construction or renovation work done to this building since its completion. Department of the Navy P164 records indicate that the tank is still 500,000 gallons and continues in its intended function as a potable water storage tank. Facility 99 continues to works in conjunction with Facility 98, NWIRP Dallas’ water pump house. Drinking water stored in Facility 99 is pumped via Facility 98 throughout NWIRP Dallas to provide employees with potable water. Facility 99’s processes are similar to Facility 100, another potable water storage tank.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 99 serves solely as a water storage tank, which is a support function and not part of NWIRP Dallas’ direct mission. Even though the building is reflective of its period of design and construction, it is a nondescript industrial building that is not unique to NWIRP Dallas and probably appears at other Navy-owned installations. Furthermore, Facility 99 is a typical illustration of a standardized support facility and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-17 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

engineering merits as required for the building to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C”. Furthermore, historical investigation for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 99 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. This factor negates Facility 99’s eligibility for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion “A”.

PAGE 12-18 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 100: WATER STORAGE TANK (POTABLE)

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 100 is a circular water storage tank in the central portion of NWIRP Dallas. This 71’-0” long, 26’-0” foot wide structure has a storage capacity of 500,000 gallons. The facility’s foundation is a concrete slab-on-grade and both its structural system and exterior walls are Figure 12-10. Facility 100. concrete. Facility 100 has a domed roof, constructed of concrete. Access to the structure is through a hatch on its roof. The facility has no doors or windows.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 100, a potable Water Storage Tank, was constructed in 1954 as part of an activity-wide Spring Building program that was undertaken in order for the contractor to meet Cold War production demands. An unknown architectural firm and construction company performed the work on Facility 100; however, it is probable that the Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans, supplied the drawings through its program of standardized plan construction. The 500,000-gallon water tank cost the Department of the Navy $32,354. No Class II property records exist for Facility 100 and there are no contractor-generated property records either; therefore, limited information exists as to construction or renovation work done to this building since its completion. Department of the Navy P164 records indicate that the tank is still 500,000 gallons and continues in its intended function as a potable water storage tank. Facility 100 continues to works in conjunction with Facility 98, NWIRP Dallas’ water pump house. Drinking water stored in Facility 100 is pumped via Facility 98 throughout NWIRP Dallas to provide employees with potable water. Facility 100’s processes are similar to Facility 99, another potable water storage tank.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 100 serves solely as a water storage tank, which is a support function and not part of NWIRP Dallas’ direct mission. Even though the building is reflective of its period of design and construction, it is

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-19 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

a nondescript, industrial building that is not unique to NWIRP Dallas and probably appears at other Navy-owned installations. Furthermore, Facility 100 is a typical illustration of a standardized support facility and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C”. Furthermore, historical investigation for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 100 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. This factor negates Facility 100’s eligibility for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion “A”.

PAGE 12-20 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 101: POWERHOUSE STORAGE BUILDING

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 101 was constructed in the central portion of NWIRP Dallas in 1955. This rectangular-plan structure, like most of the other resources at NWIRP Dallas, is of utilitarian design and lacks stylistic ornamentation or embellishment.

Facility 101 is one story in height and Figure 12-11. Facility 101. is 36’-0” long and 16’-0” wide. The resource rests atop a reinforced concrete foundation. Exterior walls are transite siding on structural steel framing. Corrugated steel sheets form the building’s shed roof. Primary access to the structure is through a hinged single metal door on its north facade. A secondary entrance, located on Facility 101’s east facade, is a hinged, single steel-frame door clad with transite siding. Louvered fresh air intakes are on the facility’s north and south facades. Facility 101 has had no significant alterations since its construction and retains a high degree of integrity.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 101 is a Powerhouse Storage Building constructed in 1955 in support of the activity-wide factory expansion. The 3,084 square foot building cost the Department of the Navy only $5,000 and originally housed the D electrical switchboard at NWIRP Dallas. An unknown architectural firm and construction company performed the work on Facility 101; however, it is probable that the Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans, supplied the drawings through its program of standardized plan construction. No Class II property records exist for Facility 101 and there are no contractor- generated property records either; therefore, limited information exists as to construction or renovation work done to this building since its completion in 1955. Department of the Navy P164 records indicate that the building is still 3,084 square feet, but lists its current name as the Public Works Shop Storage Building, which indicates a change in the building’s overall function.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-21 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 101 historically functioned as a powerhouse storage building, which was supportive of NWIRP Dallas’ direct mission by housing electrical equipment and controls to portions of the plant. Its current function as a storage building is as support only and is unrelated to the activity’s primary mission as an aerospace manufacturing complex. Even though the building is reflective of its period of design and construction, it is a nondescript industrial building that is not unique to NWIRP Dallas and probably appears at other Navy- owned installations. Furthermore, Facility 101 is a typical illustration of a standardized support facility and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C”. Furthermore, historical investigation for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 101 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. This factor negates Facility 101’s eligibility for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion “A”.

PAGE 12-22 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 102: MACHINE TOOL & FURNITURE BUILDING

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 102, located in the west-central portion of NWIRP Dallas, was built in 1954 as part of the plant’s Korean War expansion. The building sits on a level terrain with concrete paving on all sides.

The one-story facility is 394’-0” long and 72’-0” wide. The building rests on a reinforced -concrete slab foundation. Facility 102 utilizes steel-frame construction clad with ribbed steel siding and concrete. The facility has a Figure 12-12. Facility 102. flat roof consisting of ribbed-steel decking, rigid insulation boards, and built-up roofing materials. Roof drains lead to downspouts on the building’s north facade. The building’s north facade features eight overhead metal doors with vision panels. Hinged, single metal doors with vision panels are located on the building’s north and south facades. Facility 102 was designed to black-out standards and has no windows.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Constructed in 1954 as part of the Spring Building Program (1952- 1956) at NIRAP Dallas (now NWIRP Dallas), Facility 102 was designed by an unknown architectural firm, which was either approved or supplied through the Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans. The O’Rourke Construction Company of Dallas constructed Facility 102, which was completed in 1954. The building cost the Department of Navy $141,913.00. Facility 102 consisted of 27,655 square feet and the lessee, Chance Vought, originally utilized the space as a machine tool storage building. No Class II property records exist for Facility 102 and there are no contractor-generated property records either; therefore, only limited information exists as to construction or renovation work done to this building. Department of the Navy P164 records indicate that Facility 102 is still 27,655 square feet, signifying that no major additions have occurred since its completion in 1954. Navy P164s records also list Facility 102’s current name as the Machine Tool & Furniture Building, which reflects only a minor change in overall function. The function changed from the exclusive storage of specialized machine tools, (required in the manufacture of jet aircraft

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-23 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

and missile systems), to also include storage of excess furniture and office equipment.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 102 was one of 17 buildings constructed at NWIRP Dallas by Chance Vought and the Department of the Navy from 1952-1956. Facility 102 played only a supportive role to contractor operations of NWIRP Dallas by serving as a central location for the storage of highly specialized tools and later furniture. Facility 102 played no significant or noteworthy role in NWIRP Dallas’ primary mission of aerospace manufacturing during the Cold War years. Furthermore, Facility 102 was not used for product development or design and was not critical in the plant’s successful day-to-day operations. Historical investigation for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 102 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. Consequently, Facility 102 lacks historical associations required to merit inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion “A”. Even though Facility 102 has gone virtually unchanged since its completion in 1954, it is a typical illustration of a standardized support facility and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C”.

PAGE 12-24 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 103: JET ENGINE TEST BUILDING

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Faciltiy 103 is a one-story airframe assembly plant in the southeast portion of NWIRP Dallas. Built in 1954, it was increased in size by a 1971 addition. The facility sits on a level terrain, with paving on all sides. Facility 103, like the majority of resources at NWIP Dallas is utilitarian in design and lacks Figure 12-13. Facility 103. stylistic ornamentation or embellishment.

Facility 103 is rectangular in plan and is 103’-0” long and 51’-0” wide. The reinforced concrete slab foundation supports a steel-frame structural system. Exterior walls are ribbed steel siding and concrete The roof is flat and is constructed of ribbed steel decking, rigid insulation board, and built-up roofing materials. Mechanical penthouses are near the roof’s northeast and northwest corners. Primary entries, located on the building’s north facade, are hinged, paired metal doors. Secondary entries, located in the facility’s south and north facades, are horizontal tracked metal doors. The north, south, and east façades also feature single metal doors. Metal canopies hood each door. Because the building was designed to black-out standards, it has no windows. The facility houses functions related to jet engine assembly and testing.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Constructed between 1953 and 1954, Facility 103 was part of Chance Vought’s Spring Building Program and the overall expansion of NIRAP Dallas (now NWIRP Dallas) to meet the company’s Cold War manufacturing requirements on jet aircraft and missiles. The Dallas-based engineering firm of R.C. Stokes designed Facility 103 to test and qualify jet engines installed in Vought’s Cutlass, Crusader, and Corsair II aircraft manufacturing programs. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks, 8th District, located in New Orleans, Louisiana, approved the architectural drawings submitted by R.C. Stokes and authorized the construction of Facility 103. O’Rourke Construction Company, also of Dallas, conducted the actual construction efforts under the close supervision of both the Department of the Navy and Chance Vought engineers.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-25 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Designed by R.C. Stokes to be sturdy, able to support tons of heavy equipment and machinery, and able to tolerate potential explosions, Facility 103 was constructed of steel, concrete, and brick masonry. The two-story, 5,253-square-foot building originally cost $256,399 and closely resembled the physical exterior of Facility 95, the missile Test Cell Building. Test cells in Facility 103 consisted of both the power and control mechanisms for air-breathing jet engines. The Department of the Navy selected and provided the engines to Chance Vought, which the company received through Facility 93 (the shipping and manufacturing building) and then moved to Facility 106 (the Engine Assembly Building). Following the engines’ assembly, Chance Vought engineers tested and qualified them in Facility 103’s test cells, using a process similar to the missile engines qualification procedures (Guided Missiles 1997: np).

Class II Records for Facility 103 indicate that the building underwent improvements in 1957 and again in 1971. Contractor-generated property records in Facility 2 contained contracts detailing the rework of test cells 1 and 2 in March of 1957, and again in 1971; these seem to be modification processes similar to those of Facility 95. In both instances, Chance Vought hired Zumwalt & Vinther, Consulting Engineers of Dallas, to re-route the jet fuel piping entering test cells 1 and 2; this was a modification necessary for the full- scale production of both the F8 Crusader and the A-7 Corsair II for combat use in Vietnam. According to contracts on file (Noa-1105 Item 10b), the Navy’s Bureau of Yards and Docks provided the architectural plans (drawing 792,295); however, there are no architectural plans on file in the Engineering Offices at NWIRP Dallas. Other than the 1957 and 1971 modifications, Facility 103 has gone virtually unchanged and remains a 5,253-square-foot industrial building valued by the Navy at $1,777,614.

Located the southernmost portion of the plant, Facility 103, the Jet Engine Test Building, is immediately west of Facility 95, the former missile test cell building. During the Cold War years, the function of Facility 103 can be closely associated with the F7U Cutlass, F8U Crusader, A-7 Corsair II, Lockheed S-3 Viking, and the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet. The last contractor at NWIRP Dallas, Northrop Grumman, and the current contractor, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, use(d) Facility 103 to test the engines for Boeing subassembly work and, more recently, on the PAMPA 2000 jet trainer.

PAGE 12-26 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 103 was one of 17 buildings constructed at NWIRP Dallas by Chance Vought during its Spring Building Program (1952-1956). As the main test cell building for the contractor’s jet aircraft programs, Facility 103 played an important role in Chance Vought’s final production processes during the Cold War years. Its testing history Figure 12-14. Operations room of Facility 103. includes work on the Cutlass, Crusader, and Corsair II aircraft, as well as later production models of the F/A-18. Though Facility 103’s historical associations are strong, it does not merit inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion “A”. The jet engines were not manufactured at NWIRP Dallas but by other companies and at plants located throughout the country. The Department of the Navy selected the engines prior to the design of an aircraft and supplied them to Chance Vought, which had no say in the manufacture or style of the engine. Finally, Facility 103’s prime function was for the clearance of engines not unique to NWIRP Dallas. Facility 103 is not eligible under Criterion “C” because the design and engineering associated with Facility 103 is more reflective of standardized construction during the Cold War era than of any innovative technology. Though Facility 103 is recognizable to its period of significance, it lacks significant historical associations to jet aircraft production during the Cold War, and it does not possess noteworthy engineering or architectural features to merit inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion “C”.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-27 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 104: PAINT HANGAR

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Constructed in 1956, Facility 104 is large hangar in the northeast part of NWIRP Dallas. It sits on a level terrain, with concrete paving on all sides. Facility 104 is utilitarian in design, lacking stylistic ornamentation or Figure 12-15. Facility 104. embellishment.

The facility measures 215’-0” in length and 191’-0” in width for a total of 45,666 square feet of useable interior space. A concrete slab foundation supports the building’s steel- frame structural system. The building’s roof is primarily gabled with lower shed-roof wings and is constructed of lightweight concrete decking, 1”-thick insulation board, and built-up roofing materials. Roof drains lead to downspouts on the building’s north facade. Exterior walls are clad with ribbed steel siding and concrete.

The principal feature of the building’s main facade is a single large pivoting door that features an integral hinged panel and two integral sliding panels. The facility’s secondary entrance is a four-panel horizontal tracked door on its west facade. Facility 104’s windows are steel-sash projected-panel units. Additional exterior wall openings include louvered vents on the facility’s west and north facades.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 104 is the paint hangar at NWIRP Dallas and is located east of Facility 105 and adjacent to Jefferson Boulevard. Smith & Wardner Architects, of Dallas, Texas, designed Facility 104 to the direct specifications of Texas Engineering & Manufacturing Company (TEMCO), which occupied and operated the east portion of the industrial complex from 1949-1960. At the time, TEMCO was one of the largest subassembly and refurbishing contractors working for the Navy and required a paint stripping building in order to reduce its increasingly high backlog. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans, approved the architectural plans for Facility 104 and authorized construction, which began in July 1953 and was completed by 1 December 1956.

PAGE 12-28 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The Department of the Navy hired T.C. Bateson Construction Company of Dallas and James Stewart & Company of New York to complete construction of Facility 104. The building, which cost the Navy $1,309,920 to construct, provided TEMCO with a nearly 46,000-square foot hangar for paintwork on the McDonnell Demon jet aircraft, as well as the Boeing B-47 Stratojet, Lockheed P2V Neptune, Martin P5M Marlin, TEMCO TT-1 Pinto, and the Convair B-36 aircraft. TEMCO used nearby Facility 105 to strip paint and clean the aircraft prior to moving it to Facility 104, the paint hangar, where final painting occurred. Smith & Wardner designed the building around a large paint and work area with two smaller adjoining rooms, which was used for paint storage and mixing. The paint area was self-contained with ventilation supplied by an intake system and exhaust fans, providing fresh air into the workspace at a rate of 120 feet per minute. The paint area contained various open cribs that could accommodate different projects at one time, as well as utility services, into the workspace. These included compressed air for the paint guns, steam, fresh hot and cold water, and electricity. Facility 104 had no unusual construction features except that the locations of utility outlets was not determined until after construction ended in December 1956. TEMCO wanted to view the finished building before deciding where the outlets would be located, in order to establish efficient and convenient painting processes. T.C. Bateson and James Stewart & Company charged approximately $33,000 to install Facility 104’s utility outlets and safety items, such as a sprinkler system and draft curtains (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 2 July 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955:1; ROICC, Record Report 26 January 1957: np).

When Ling-TEMCO merged with Chance Vought in 1962, Facility 104 became involved in final production processes that consisted of painting the Regulus I and II missiles, the F8U Crusader, the A-7 Corsair II, and a variety of subassembly work. Class II Records indicate that Facility 104 underwent improvements 1972, but contractor-generated facility files do not detail the work. Since 1972, Facility 104 has undergone no major alterations or additions except for new exterior paint in 1994, which occurred plant-wide and reflected a change in tenancy at NWIRP Dallas. Today, Facility 104 continues in its intended capacity as a paint hangar and is used by current lessee, Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., for work on Boeing wing sections. Class II Records indicate that the Department of the Navy currently values the 45,666 square foot industrial building at $8,378,248 (ROICC, Record Report 26 January 1957: np).

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-29 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 104 is a paint hangar that is supportive of manufacturing activities at NWIRP Dallas. One of two buildings constructed for TEMCO as part of the Naval Expansion of Plant “A” facilities at NWIRP Dallas (1955-1956), Facility 104 played a notable, but minor role in the plant’s overall operation and mission. At the time of its construction, it was used only to paint refurbished aircraft manufactured elsewhere in the country, rather than fulfilling final manufacturing processes on aircraft or missiles designed and manufactured at the plant. In 1962, Facility 104 became the paint area for final production models manufactured at NWIRP Dallas. Historical investigation for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 104 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. This factor negates Facility 104’s eligibility for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion “A”. Furthermore, Facility 104 is a typical illustration of an industrial-support facility, and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C”. Facility 104 is not eligible for the NRHP.

PAGE 12-30 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 105: PAINT STRIPPING BUILDING

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 105 is a one-story building in the northeast portion of NWIRP Dallas. The building was constructed in 1956 and was enlarged approximately 3, 900 sf by a 1967 addition. The facility sits on a level terrain, with concrete paving on all sides. Facility 105, like most of the other resources at NWIRP Dallas, is of utilitarian design and lacks stylistic ornamentation or embellishment.

The one-story building is rectangular in plan and measures 153’-0” in length and 78’-0” in width. Facility 105 rests atop a reinforced- concrete foundation. Exterior walls are concrete and ribbed steel siding on structural steel framing. The facility’s flat roof is constructed of a ribbed-steel decking, rigid insulation boards, and built-up roofing materials. Roof drains lead to downspouts on the facility’s east and west facades. Facility 105’s primary entrances are metal canopy doors located on its south facade. Additional entries include hinged, single metal doors on the east and north facades. Because Facility 105 was designed to black-out standards, it has no windows.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 105 is a paint stripping building located northeast of Facility 1 and adjacent to Jefferson Boulevard. Smith & Wardner Architects of Dallas, Texas, and William B. Tenery, a technical engineer from Grand Prairie, designed Facility 105 to the direct specifications of TEMCO.When Facility 105 was built in 1955-56, TEMCO was one of the largest subassembly and refurbishing Figure 12-16. Facility 105. contractors working for the Navy. The company required a paint stripping building in order to reduce its increasingly high backlog. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans, approved the architectural plans for Facility 105 and authorized construction, which began in June 1955 and was completed by 1 December 1956.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-31 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The Department of the Navy hired T.C. Bateson Construction Company of Dallas and James Stewart & Company of New York to build Facility 105, which cost $105,600 to construct. The building provided TEMCO with an 8,048-square-foot subassembly area for refurbishing work on the Boeing B-47 Stratojet, Lockheed P2V Neptune, Martin P5M Marlin, and the Convair B-36 aircraft. TEMCO used Facility 105 to strip paint and clean the aircraft prior to moving it to nearby Facility 104, where final refurbishing and painting occurred. Smith & Wardner designed the building as only one-half enclosed with a large overhead door and two small doors that the contractor opened for air circulation. The toxicity of the chemicals used in Facility 105 to strip paint from aircraft also impacted the internal spaces with the main working areas ventilated by unit heaters and air conditioning. These two design features permitted the continual introduction of outside air into the interior work areas (TEMCO Tidings 16 January 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 2 July 1953: 1; TEMCO Tidings 17 June 1955:1; ROICC, Record Report 26 January 1957: np).

Facility 105 had no unusual construction, except that the location of utility outlets was not determined until after construction ended in December 1956. TEMCO wanted to view the finished building before deciding where the outlets would be located in order to establish efficient and convenient factory processes. T.C. Bateson and James Stewart & Company charged approximately $16,500 to install Facility 105’s utility outlets and safety items. Class II Records indicate that Facility 105 underwent an expansion in 1968 that added 3,900 square feet of paint preparation space. Since this addition, Facility 105 has undergone no major alterations or additions except for new exterior paint in 1994 (ROICC, Record Report 26 January 1957: np).

When Ling-TEMCO merged with Chance Vought in 1962, Facility 105 became involved in final production processes that consisted of paint preparation of A-7 Corsair II. At some point, Facility 105 ceased to be used as a paint stripping and preparation building. Charles Hampton, one of the Navy’s current onsite representatives, indicated that Facility 105 is presently used as storage space for Chance Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. Class II Records indicate that the Department of the Navy currently values the 11,948 square foot industrial building at $1,238,950.

PAGE 12-32 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 105 is a paint stripping building that is supportive of manufacturing activities at NWIRP Dallas. One of two buildings constructed for TEMCO during its mid-1950s building program, Facility 105 played only a minor role in the plant’s overall operation and mission. At the time of its construction, it was used only to refurbish existing aircraft manufactured elsewhere and at a much earlier date, rather than fulfilling final manufacturing processes on aircraft or missiles designed and manufactured at the plant. In 1962, Facility 105’s function changed to final paint preparation of NWIRP Dallas- manufactured products. Historical investigations for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 105 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. This factor negates Facility 105’s eligibility for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion A. Furthermore, Facility 105 has been altered from its original 8,048 square feet with a 3,900-square-foot addition in 1968 that changed the historic character and form of the building. Facility 105 lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering and does not meet NRHP Criterion C; it is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-33 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 106: ENGINE ASSEMBLY BUILDING

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 106, constructed in 1954, is a one-story airframe assembly plant in the east- central part of NWIRP Dallas. Facility 106 sits on a level terrain, with concrete paving on all sides. Like most of the other resources at NWIRP Dallas, Facility 106 is of utilitarian design and lacks stylistic ornamentation or embellishment. The rectangular-plan facility consists of a large, main mass with a smaller lean-to addition constructed in 1968.

The building, which is 138’-0” long and 62’-0” wide, rests atop a reinforced concrete foundation. Exterior walls are concrete and ribbed steel siding on structural steel framing. The flat and shed roof consists of ribbed metal decking, rigid insulation board, and built- up roofing materials. Roof drains lead to downspouts on the facility’s north and south facades. The facility’s primary entrance, located on the east facade, is a set of 4-panel horizontal tracked metal doors. Additional entries include overhead metal doors on the building’s north and south facades. Windows, located only on the building’s south facade, are steel-sash double-hung units hooded with metal awnings.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 106, an engine assembly building, was constructed during a complex-wide building program in the mid 1950s. Drawings for Facility 106 were probably provided by the Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans. O’Rourke Construction Company of Dallas erected the one-story, pre-fabricated, corrugated steel- sided building, which Figure 12-17. Facility 106. encompassed 6,289 square feet. Facility 106 cost the Department of the Navy $63,874.41 to build.

Facility 106’s original function had to do with the assembly of jet and missile engines that were shipped to NWIRP Dallas from other manufacturers nationwide. The engines were assembled in Facility 106 under close scrutiny from representatives of the engine manufacturer. The jet aircraft missiles were tested in Facility 103, and the missile engines in Facility 95. The contractor stored the

PAGE 12-34 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN completed engines in Facility 114 after testing until they were ready for installation in final production models of aircraft and missiles. The lessee installed aircraft engines in the F8U Crusader, F7 Cutlass, A-7 Corsair II, and the F-8 jet aircraft in both Facilities 1 and 6, the main manufacturing factories at NWIRP Dallas. Missile engines for the Regulus I and II were installed in Facility 97, a final production hangar located near Facility 114.

Architectural plans on file at NWIRP Dallas indicate that in 1971, contractor LTV funded an expansion of Facility 106 that included a 2,267-square-foot addition and the replacement of pipes and pumps throughout the building. Contractor-generated property records do not detail the expansion effort, nor do they specify which construction firm completed the work; however, once complete, Facility 106 encompassed 8,556 square feet and the Navy valued the building at $88,752.00. Class II property records indicate that Facility 106 did not undergo any additional improvements following the 1971 expansion, and current Navy P164 records list the size of Facility 106 as unchanged from previously recorded figures. This information suggests that the building has not been modified significantly.

Northrop Grumman and current tenant Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. never manufactured a complete production model aerospace product since work on the Corsair II ended in the late 1980s. Since that time, the function of Facility 106 has changed from an engine assembly plant to an engine storage building for large Boeing commercial passenger aircraft subassemblies.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Since its construction, Facility 106 has served as an engine assembly building, and thus is related to the primary mission of NWIRP Dallas. No information obtained in support of this survey suggests that the building possesses significant historical associations in the context of Cold War aircraft and missile manufacturing, and therefore does not meet NRHP Criteria “A.” Facility 106 also lacks distinction for architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C.” In conclusion, Facility 106 is not eligible for the NRHP.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-35 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 107: LOW-SPEED WIND TUNNEL

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Constructed in 1955, Facility 107 is 9464 sq ft laboratory in the southwest portion of NWIRP Dallas. The irregular-plan facility rests atop a level terrain with concrete paving on all sides. Facility 107 consists of a three-story lab with a low-speed wind tunnel adjacent to its east facade. Also adjacent to the east facade is a small one-story temporary building.

The resource’s three-story lab has a concrete slab while its wind tunnel rests atop concrete footings. Facility 107 is 68’-0” in width and 87’-0” in length. Facility 107’s exterior wall materials are clad with ribbed steel siding and concrete on structural steel framing. The building’s roof is flat and consists of ribbed steel decking, rigid insulation board, and built-up roofing materials. Roof Figure 12-18. Facility 107. drains lead to downspouts the building’s west facade.

The facility’s primary entrance is on the north facade and features a set of hinged, paired metal and glass doors. The building’s secondary door type, an overhead metal door, is also located on the facility’s north facade. Facility 107s windows, located only on its west facade, are multiple-light, steel-sash, industrial units.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Dedicated in March 1955, Facility 107, a low speed wind tunnel, was originally a temporary building designed and constructed by unknown engineering and contracting firms. The original wind tunnel cost only $71,000. In April 1965, the contractor at NWIRP Dallas, Ling-TEMCO Vought (LTV), requested that the previous temporary wind tunnel be replaced with a permanent aircraft and flight laboratory. LTV presented to the request to the Department of the Navy, which did not believe that the entire structure required replacement, but rather proposed adding a 15 by 20 foot tandem section with an associated testing station. LTV agreed with the plan and hired Chaney & James Construction Company of Richardson,

PAGE 12-36 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Texas to complete the $1,272,408 addition under contract Now-6137- u. The plans and construction work were supervised by the Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans. Chaney & James Construction completed the modifications to Facility 107 in late 1965, which brought the wind tunnel to 9,464 square feet.

LTV began immediate research and design work in Facility 107 on vertical lift, or V/STOL, subassembly projects. The new tandem section was capable of testing the three critical modes of V/STOL operations – hover, flight-cruise, and transition. LTV also utilized Facility 107 to test the design and flight properties of the A-7 Corsair II jet aircraft. The test station measured the properties, characteristics, and performance of the A-7 Corsair II under varied weather conditions and simulated environments. Class II property records indicate that Facility 107 underwent additional improvements in 1971, but contractor-generated property records on file in Facility 2 at NWIRP Dallas did not offer any specifics. Probable improvements include upgrades to equipment and machinery or replacement of interior mountings in order to accommodate testing of other aerospace products. Current Navy P164 records list Facility 107 as 9,464 square feet, which reinforces the belief that the building has not been modified significantly since 1965, only improved. Today, Facility 107 continues in its original capacity as an aircraft and flight equipment laboratory valued by the Department of the Navy at $8,517,499.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 107 serves as the installation’s low speed wind tunnel, a building critical to the design and testing of new aerospace products. Facility 107 has been significantly altered from its original 1955 Figure 12-19. Historic diagram of Facility 107. temporary construction to a permanent, three story and 9,464 square foot laboratory. Unique to NWIRP Dallas, Facility 107 is not of standardized design or construction and is highly specialized for the contractors and products of NWIRP Dallas. Critical to the develop of new products, Facility 107 is an essential building at NWIRP Dallas and essential to the activity’s primary mission of aircraft and missile development during the Cold War.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-37 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Facility 107 is a typical illustration of an industrial-support facility and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C”. One of 19 buildings constructed for NWIRP Dallas from 1952- 1956, Facility 107 has played only a minor and supportive role in the plant’s overall operation and mission. Historical investigation for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 107 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. This factor negates Facility 107’s eligibility for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion “A”.

PAGE 12-38 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 109: GASOLINE PUMP HOUSE

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 109 is a one-story, rectangular plan structure in the east- central part of NWIRP Dallas. Erected in 1954, Facility 109 functions as a fuel storage and pumping station for Facility 91, the NWIRP Dallas gas station.

The 32’-0” long, 12’-0” wide structure rests atop a concrete slab foundation. The facility’s exterior walls and structural system are reinforced concrete. The roof is flat and is constructed of built-up roofing materials. Access to the structure is through a hinged, single metal door on its east facade. Steel sash industrial windows are located on the structure’s north and south facades. Louvered fresh air vents are on all facades.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 109, a gasoline pump house, was built in 1954 to provide fuel for aircraft flight- testing at Hensley Field and engine testing in Facilities 95 and 103. Facility 109 was one of 19 buildings and structures constructed between 1952-1956 as part of an activity- wide Spring Building Program that the Navy undertook in order to meet Cold War production demands. Zumwalt and Vinther, Figure 12-20. Facility 109. Architect Engineers of Dallas, designed Facility 109, and the drawings were approved by the Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans. An unknown construction company performed the work on Facility 109, which began early in 1954. The 600 GM structure cost the Department of the Navy $16,400 to construct and consisted of a one-story, rectangular brick building that is half underground. A stairwell leads down to the door of the building, which contains pumps that bring aircraft fuel aboveground. The contractor could then access the fuel via exterior pumps along the building’s northernmost wall.

No Class II property records are known to exist for Facility 109, nor are there any known contractor-generated property records; therefore, little is known about the building’s physical evolution. Department of the Navy P164 records indicate that the building is still 600 GM and

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-39 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

continues in its intended function as an aircraft fuel distribution station. Facility 109 works in conjunction with Facility 110, the fuel calibration shelter. Fuel calibrated in Facility 110 is distributed through underground pumps to Facility 109 and then made available through exterior pumps.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 109 functions as an aircraft fuel distribution station, which directly supports NWIRP Dallas’ primary mission. As a required element of aircraft operations testing, Facility 109 is not unique to NWIRP Dallas and is representative of a standardized support facility. Facility 109 has gone virtually unchanged and retains its original location and association. However, it lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Furthermore, historical investigations for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 109 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. Facility 109 is not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion A.

PAGE 12-40 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 110: FUEL CALIBRATION SHELTER

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Erected in 1955, Facility 110 is a one-story, rectangular-plan structure in the eastern portion of NWIRP Dallas. The facility consists of two open-air structures connected by a low, shed-roof breezeway. Concrete pads function as the structure’s foundation. As originally constructed, the facility contained 6,099 square feet of usable interior space. A large, 10,914-square-foot addition was built in 1968; this expanded the building to 17,013 square feet.

The 159’-0” long, 107-0” wide structure utilizes a rigid steel frame structural system. Ribbed steel and fluted steel panels form the structure’s exterior walls. The roof of Facility 110’s westernmost, quonset-hut type structure is vaulted while its east structure has a front-gabled roof. Both roofs are constructed of ribbed steel. Because the facility is open air, it lacks doors and windows. Figure 12-21. Facility 110. HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 110, a fuel calibration shelter, was originally an 8,000- square-foot semi- permanent building that cost $183,498.00 to build in 1955. An unknown construction company built Facility 110, a Quonset Hut, which was typical of temporary, corrugated- metal buildings constructed at numerous U.S. military installations from 1940-1970. In 1965, NWIRP Dallas’s contractor, LTV, requested improvements to the fuel laboratory. LTV presented the request to the Department of the Navy, which had the Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans, authorize the construction work. Landaur, Guerrero & Shafer Engineers of Dallas began renovating Facility 110 under Contract NOa-1105 Item 10(f) in 1967 and had completed the project by 1969. The Facility 110 addition more than doubled the size of the high temperature fluid test laboratory to 17,013 square feet. Construction work also consisted of ramp repair, the installation of two new aircraft fuel storage tanks and new fuel calibration, fire protection, and electrical equipment. These changes led to the building’s reclassification as a permanent facility. In total, the 1967-1969 alterations to Facility 110 cost the contractor $142,500.00 to implement.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-41 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

LTV requested the expansion of Facility 110 to accommodate expanded fuel calibration operations on the A-7A and A-7D versions of the Corsair II, F-8 modification, and XC- 142 (experimental) aircraft testing. “The task of fuel calibration involves a complete checkout of the entire fuel system, including both the fuel transfer capability, gauging instrumentation, and ground check of the in-flight refueling system. At the same time, the determination is made of total fuel load capacity” (Addition to Fuel Calibration Building 3 October 1967: 2; LTV Profile February 1969: 1). LTV required approximately 16 hours per aircraft to completely analyze and check the gauges, instrumentation, and fuel capacity of each jet aircraft. The improvements to Facility 110 more than doubled the company’s capacity for testing aircraft fueling systems. The six new calibration stations allowed LTV to test and qualify 23 F-8 Crusader aircraft, and 40 A-7 Corsair II, per month. Proper fuel calibration was important, especially prior to flight-testing of aircraft, because improper calibration could cause an engine to stall and malfunction. This could either cause damage to the aircraft, its engine, or initiate a possible crash (Addition to Fuel Calibration Building 3 October 1967: 2; LTV Profile February 1969: 1).

Facility records maintained by the Navy and the plant’s contractor indicate that Facility 110 did not undergo any additional improvements following the 1967-1969 expansion. Current Navy P164 records list Facility 110 as encompassing 17,013 square feet. Facility 110 continues in its original capacity as a fuel calibration building, and its replacement value is listed Figure 12-22. Historic photograph of Facility 110. at $1,228,336.00.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Since its construction, Facility 110 has served as a high temperature fluid test laboratory, a function directly related to aircraft testing at NWIRP Dallas. Although Facility 110 serves a required function at the plant, its mere association with the plant’s successful operation throughout the Cold War is not sufficient to merit inclusion to the NRHP under Criteria “A.” Furthermore, Facility 110 lacks sufficient integrity to eligible for listing under Criteria “C” because it has been modified extensively since its original construction in 1955. Facility 110 is a typical, non-descript, and pre-fabricated metal industrial building that is not unique to NWIRP Dallas and can be found at military installations across the nation and worldwide. Facility 110 is not eligible for the NRHP.

PAGE 12-42 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 114: ENGINE STORAGE BUILDING

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 114, erected in 1955, is a rectangular plan, quonset hut-type building in the east- central part of NWIRP Dallas. The one-story building rests atop a level terrain with paving on all sides.

Facility 114, measuring 50’-0” in length and 48’-0” in width, houses a total of 2412 square feet of useable interior space. The building rests atop a continuous Figure 12-23. Facility 114. footing concrete foundation. The one-story resource utilizes a steel-frame structure with steel siding exteriors. The facility’s vaulted roof is constructed of ribbed steel. Primary facade entries are hinged, single and hinged, paired metal doors. The building lacks windows.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 114, an engine storage building, was constructed in 1955 as part of an activity- wide Spring Building Program (1952-1956) that the contractor requested in order to meet Cold War production demands. An unknown construction company performed the installation of Facility 114, a corrugated metal Quonset Hut typical of the World War II- era temporary buildings that appeared at military installations nationwide from 1940- 1970. The 2,412-square-foot temporary construction building cost the Department of the Navy only $5,551. No Class II property records exist for Facility 114 and there are no contractor-generated property records either; therefore, limited information exists as to construction or renovation work done to this building since its completion. Department of the Navy P164 records indicate that the building is still 2,412 square feet, which signifies that Facility 114 has not undergone any significant modifications or alterations since its completion in 1955.

Throughout its history and the various tenants of NWIRP Dallas, Facility 114 has always been used to store aircraft and missile engines ready to be installed during final manufacturing processes occurring in Facilities 1, 6, or 97. The Department of the Navy supplies its contractors with engines, which are received through Facility 93 and assembled in Facility 106. Once assembled, the

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-43 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

engines are stored in Facility 114 until they can be properly tested in either Facility 95 or 103. Aircraft engines stored in Facility 114 were tested in Facility 103 and missile engines were tested in Facility 95. Following appropriate testing and clearance, the engines continued to be stored in Facility 114 prior to installation in final production aircraft and missiles. The lessee installed aircraft engines in final production models of the F8U Crusader, F7 Cutlass, A-7 Corsair II, and the F-8 jet aircraft in both Facilities 1 and 6, the main manufacturing factories at NWIRP Dallas. Missile engines for the Regulus I and II were installed in Facility 97, a final production hangar located near Facility 114.

Today, Facility 114 continues in its intended capacity as a storage area for aircraft engines, but the current lessee, Chance Vought Aircraft, Inc., also uses the space for miscellaneous facility-related storage.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Since its construction, Facility 114 has served as an engine storage building, a function directly related to the primary mission of NWIRP Dallas. Though the building is reflective of its period of design and construction, it is a temporary, metal industrial building that is not unique to NWIRP Dallas and appears at numerous Navy- owned installations nationwide. By their nature, Quonset Huts lack distinction for architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion “C”. Quonset Huts were intended to be a quick fix to an immediate need for building construction and not a long-term solution. The fact that Facility 114 has survived 50 years, and continues in its intended capacity, is noteworthy. However, the various contractors at NWIRP Dallas have permitted the slow deterioration of Facility 114; it is currently covered in rust and is in need of maintenance or replacement. Though Facility 114 resembles its period of significance and played a role in the manufacturing process at NWIRP Dallas during the Cold War, it lacks the level of historical association necessary to merit inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria “A”. Facility 114 served only as a storage building for engines which were manufactured elsewhere and shipped to NWIRP Dallas for assembly in Facility 106. The mere association with the plant’s successful operation during the Cold War is not sufficient to merit inclusion – the building must have integrity as well as play an integral role in the manufacturing processes. Storage is not considered an integral role; therefore, Facility 114 is not eligible for inclusion because of its lack of significant historical associations and the deteriorated condition of the building.

PAGE 12-44 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 115: FIRE STATION

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Facility 115, erected in 1954, is a rectangular-plan fire station. The building rests atop a concrete slab in the west-central part of NWIRP Dallas.

The two-story resource is 83’-0” long and 100’-0” wide. Exteriors are brick veneer on structural steel framing. An exterior ramp is adjacent to the east facade. The building has a multi- level flat roof constructed of ribbed metal decking, rigid insulation board, and built- up roofing materials. Roof Figure 12-24. Facility 115. drains lead to downspouts on all facades. The facility’s door types include three overhead metal doors with vision panels on the north facade; hinged, single hollow steel doors on the north and east facades; overhead metal doors on the east facade; and hinged, single metal doors with vision panel on the north facade. Large, steel- sash industrial windows are located on north, east, and west facades. Single hung, aluminum-frame windows are on the facility’s north and west facades.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Dedicated on 13 December 1953, Facility 115 has served as NWIRP Dallas’ fire station for nearly 50 years. Constructed during a major building program of the mid-1950s, Facility 115 provided the contractors of the plant with a modern fire fighting station and crash response unit for Hensley Field aircraft operations. Smith & Wardner Architects, of Dallas, Texas, designed Facility 115 to the direct specifications of Chance Vought. Smith & Wardner designed the fire station and two other buildings, including Facilities 104, 105, and 115. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans, approved the architectural plans for Facility 115 and authorized construction, which began in early 1953.

The Department of the Navy hired Peterson Construction Company to erect Facility 115. The building cost the Navy $96,040 and provided NWIRP Dallas with a 7,585-square-foot fire station. Facility 115, a two-story brick building, contained three bays for fire

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-45 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

engine and crash response vehicles, as well as wings on either side for office and work space. Facility 115 replaced an obsolete World War II-era fire station (Facility 84). Since the end of the war, the Navy replaced nearly all propeller-driven aircraft with jets, which used different fuel and manufacturing techniques than the previous models. Facility 115 was equipped with advanced capabilities and was able to deal with emergency situations at the plant without calling in outside services.

Contractor-generated property records at NWIRP Dallas revealed that no major alterations or additions have been made to Facility 115 since its completion in late 1953. Department of the Navy P164 records list the current size of Facility 115 as 7,585 square feet, which further reinforces the belief that the building has not been modified. Today, Facility 115 continues in its original capacity as a fire station.

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 115 serves as the installation fire station and emergency crash response building, a support function for the plant’s day-to-day operations and flight-testing. The building provides limited support to manufacturing activities at NWIRP Dallas and allows the activity to continue as a self-contained complex that does not rely on city services in cases of emergency. Fire stations are located on nearly all of the Navy’s large installations and are not unique to NWIRP Dallas. Facility 115 has not been altered from its original 7,585- square-foot size and retains its historic appearance and form; however, it is a nondescript, industrial-based fire station specializing in containing and controlling emergency situations related to aircraft and missile production and testing. Facility 115 is a typical illustration of an industrial-support facility and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. One of 19 buildings constructed for NWIRP Dallas from 1952-1956, Facility 115 has played only a minor role in the plant’s overall operation and mission. Historical investigation for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 115 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. This factor negates Facility 115’s eligibility for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion A.

PAGE 12-46 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

FACILITY 117: FIRE PUMP HOUSE

PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION Constructed in 1956, Facility 117 is a small, rectangular plan structure in the central portion of NWIRP Dallas. The structure rests atop a level terrain with paving on all sides. Like most other resources at NWIRP Dallas, Facility 117 is of straightforward utilitarian design and lacks stylistic ornamentation or embellishment.

The resource rests atop a reinforced-concrete slab and features a load-bearing masonry structural system. Exterior walls are concrete block. The structure has a flat roof of built- up roofing construction. Access to the facility is by a hinged, single hollow metal door on the east facade. Steel casement windows are on the facility’s north and east facade.

HISTORIC BACKGROUND Facility 117, a pump house, was installed on 1 December 1956 in support of fire fighting, hazardous waste control, and emergency crash operations at NWIRP Dallas during the Cold War. Facility 117 was one of 19 buildings and structures constructed in 1954 as part of an activity- wide Spring Building Program that the Navy undertook in order for the contractor to meet Cold War production demands. Figure 13-25. Facility 117. The Navy’s Bureau of Yards & Docks, 8th Naval District, New Orleans, supplied the specifications for the tank, piping equipment, associated building, and concrete resting pad through its program of standardized plan construction. The building’s contractor is not known. The 9,500 GM structure cost $181,523 to erect.

Current Class II property records for Facility 117 record the function of this property as a Fire Protection Water Pumping Station. These records also indicate some leasehold improvements in 1970. No contractor-generated property records have been found that detail the 1970 improvements, but they would most likely reflect an upgrade in equipment and machinery; Department of the Navy P164 records indicate that the structure is still its original size of 9,500 GM. Facility 117 works in conjunction with Facility 115, NWIRP Dallas’ fire station, and provides fire fighting services plant-wide.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 12-47 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

NRHP ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATION Facility 117 serves solely as a fire pump house, which is a support function and thus is not part of NWIRP Dallas’primary mission. Even though the building and piping equipment reflects its period of design and construction, it is not unique to NWIRP Dallas and probably appears at other Navy-owned installations. Facility 117 is a typical illustration of a standardized support facility and lacks distinction for its architectural and/or engineering merits as required for the building to be eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. Historical investigations for this study did not uncover any information suggesting that Facility 117 is closely associated with any activities, events, or persons significant within the context of aircraft and missile production during the Cold War. Facility 117 is not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP under Criterion A.

PAGE 12-48 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

MANAGEMENT OF SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL RESOURCES

To comply with federal regulations regarding duties and responsibilities of cultural resources under its stewardship, the Navy should adopt a policy to ensure the future preservation of properties that are either listed in or have potential for inclusion in the NRHP. No buildings or structures at NWIRP Dallas are currently listed in the NRHP, but a multiply property nomination is proposed. As such, the Navy should carefully consider what effect future projects, actions, or endeavors may have on the facilities considered as significant cultural resources.

The most effective tool in the management of these resources is the signing of a PA among the Navy, the Texas SHPO, and the ACHP. Such a document is advantageous for all parties because it clearly delineates the roles and obligations of each party and enables the Navy to concentrate its Section 106 responsibilities on a finite number of facilities. It lists ordinary maintenance activities that do not require SHPO coordination, identifies projects that may impact significant cultural resources, and specifies procedures to offset or mitigate any adverse effects to targeted properties. To ensure compliance, the adoption of the ICRMP and its recommended policies should be incorporated into the PA and serve as the cornerstone of the PA and the Navy’s cultural resource management responsibilities.

Regardless of whether or not a PA has been signed, the Navy should provide the Texas SHPO a minimum of 30 days to review and comment on activities that have the potential to affect significant historic properties. Such a period allows the SHPO sufficient time to evaluate the impact a project may have on the integrity of a significant cultural resource. The following are primary topics of concern dealing with effective management of cultural resources at NWIRP Dallas. These topics, which will be discussed in later detail later in this section of the ICRMP report, consists of the following:

• Routine maintenance that does not require SHPO review and comment. • Undertakings that require SHPO review and comment. • Character-defining elements of NRHP-eligible buildings and other significant cultural resources that should be maintained to avoid damaging their integrity.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Recommendations to ensure that Navy-sponsored undertakings will comply with the Section 106 of the NPHA • Preservation issues likely to be encountered while managing the significant cultural resources

Other essential tools in the effective management of cultural resources are preservation-related manuals that the Department of the Interior, administrators of the NRHP program, and the Department of the Navy have prepared. These publications are the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and Naval Facilities Engineering Command Historic Structures Preservation Manual (more commonly known as NAVFAC MO-913). Both publications address many of the technical problems and issues pertaining to the preservation of historic properties. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation was originally developed in 1979 to evaluate the appropriateness of grant-funded work on historic properties, but have been widely used since then for a variety of purposes. The SHPO uses the Standards to evaluate the effect of proposed federally funded or licensed undertakings on NRHP-eligible properties. The publication provides recommendations on treatments that will rehabilitate a historic property yet keep important and character-defining features intact. NAVFAC MO-913 complements the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation but targets the kind of properties that the Navy typically maintains. Prepared in September 1991, the publication is designed to help ensure that establishments protect the historic properties under their stewardship and contains information on identification, preservation and proper maintenance of historic resources. These extremely informative publications should be obtained by the Public Works Department and referred to frequently.

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE Ordinary activities that will not change or alter salient and character-defining features of an NRHP-eligible property do not require SHPO review and comment. These actions are considered routine and are necessary for the day-to-day use of these properties. They are limited in scope and are easily reversible. As such, they lack the ability to damage the integrity and historic character of a property.

PAGE 13-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

The following are types of activities that are considered routine and thus exempt from the Section 106 process:

• Usual lawn maintenance, such as mowing, raking, reseeding, and grooming of shrubs. • Minor arboreal care for trees on the grounds associated with the properties. • Hand removal of clinging vegetation, such as ivy, from building exterior. • Repair of sidewalks and driveways. • Repair of chain-link fence or gate. • Replacement of broken window panes. • Recaulking of windows and door panels. • Repair of torn or damaged window and door screens. • Installation of weatherstripping. • Removal, or in-kind replacement of nonhistoric materials, finishes, and features. • Installation of new floor coverings such as carpeting or sheet vinyl. • Replacement of plumbing fixtures. • Repair/replacement of pipes and/or electrical wiring. • Repainting interior rooms. • Installation of insulation. • Repair/replacement of individual acoustic ceiling panels.

Other types of activities that do not require SHPO review and comment include work on existing subsurface structures, roads, runways, and existing utilities, as long as any ground-distributing activities are performed within the construction limits of the original work. Emergency work due to damage by hydrocarbon or hazardous materials spills, flooding or other natural disasters, and emergency structural stabilization necessitated by the threat of imminent structural failure also do not require SHPO comment. However, the emergency work must be conducted concurrent with telephone consultation with the SHPO. If there is any question whether or not an undertaking has the potential to affect one of the NRHP-eligible properties, the SHPO should be contacted for clarification.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

UNDERTAKINGS REQUIRING SHPO COMMENT AND REVIEW Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 requires SHPO coordination for projects that have the potential to have an affect the integrity of significant historic properties (see the discussion of the Seven Aspects of Integrity). In general, the types of activities that require SHPO consultation include:

• Rehabilitation, non-routine maintenance, and extensive repair of any historic properties. • New construction that directly affects a building, such as an addition, or new construction in the immediate vicinity of the building that could alter the property’s historic setting. • Landscaping and related activities, including removal or addition of - paving materials - light fixtures - planters - other nonplant materials • Demolition of historic properties

It is important to remember that Section 106 does not require restoration of historic properties but instructs federal agencies to maintain those qualities that make the properties eligible for the NRHP. The SHPO should be contacted while any activity or project is in its conceptual or planning stage.

PRESERVATION ISSUES AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Maintaining the salient and character-defining features of significant cultural resources is a fundamental goal of the ICRMP, and this section of the report identifies preservation topics and recommended actions that will assist the Navy’s NWIRP Dallas Construction Representative and Vought Aircraft Industries staff with preservation issues. Actions that may have a negative impact on these features and the effect they may have on any of the Seven Aspects of Integrity (i.e. location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association) are identified as Not Recommended actions. The information reflects common and widely accepted practices in the preservation community and is taken from two primary published sources. One publication, Historic Structures Preservation Manual, more commonly known as MO-913, was assembled by Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Prepared especially to help Navy construc-

PAGE 13-4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN tion personnel understand the preservation-related issues they are most likely to encounter, MO-913 is an indispensable guide for project planning. The other publication is the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, which all SHPOs use as the primary means to educate individuals, in both the public and private sectors, about NPS-approved preservation strategies and to evaluate proposed construction practices. The Standards, as it is referred to in this section, and its companion, MO-913, address a variety of preservation-related topics and should serve as the foundation for the successful management of significant historic properties. Issues most relevant to NWIRP Dallas are discussed in subsequent paragraphs.

PRESERVATION PHILOSOPHY As stewards of the NWIRP Dallas, the Navy should adopt an overall philosophy to guide their treatment of historic resources at the plant. The preservation philosophy of rehabilitation offers the greatest flexibility to the Navy in dealing with the historic properties. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, 1995, defines rehabilitation as

the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.

As stated in the definition, rehabilitation assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building’s historic character.

The Standards for Rehabilitation are:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-5 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

PAGE 13-6 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

SALIENT AND CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES OF NWIRP DALLAS

CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS The key factor determining whether or not an undertaking will have an adverse effect depends on the impact an action may have on the integrity of a cultural resource. Therefore, knowing what the salient and character-defining features of the resources are will enable Navy personnel to know the specific physical attributes that are critical and should be preserved to ensure that integrity is maintained. Table 12- 1 lists noteworthy site considerations and architectural elements of the historically significant buildings at NWIRP Dallas, Texas. The figures which follow the table graphically illustrate these features.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-7 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Salient and Character-Defining Features Significant Resources (Facility Number) 1 6 7 16 49 94 97 Site Features/Setting Isolated x x Adjacent to other facilities x x x x x Adjacent to open space x x x Building Type Manufacturing x x x Black-out xxxxxx Office x x Hanger x x x Laboratory x Foundation Concrete slab-on-grade xx xxxx Concrete with basement x Structural System Steel frame x x x Steel and concrete xxxx Exterior Materials Concrete xxxxxxx Box-rib steel panels xxxxxxx Articulated pilasters with x x flat steel panel borders Windows Steel sashed x Fixed aluminum x Doors Metal x x Metal canopy x x Metal with vision panels x x x Hooded metal canopy x 4 panel metal track x Overhead sectional metal x x Steel with pilots door x Single with vision panels x Aluminum and glass x x x Aluminum frame with glazing x Overhead rubber x x Sliding x x x x Pivoting canopy x x Baffles x x x Roof Flat x x Multi-level flat x Flat and gabled x Flat and gambrel with parapet x Gambrel x Roofing Material Built-up xxxxxxx

Table 13-1.

PAGE 13-8 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 1 Facility 1, a blackout-type manufacturing building sits on level terrain in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas directly southeast of the main entrance. Facility 1 is adjacent to Facility 2 and connected to Facilities 6, 7 and 11 by Facility 10, an elevated enclosed passageway. An 800’-0” x 23’-0” railroad loading dock runs along the facility’s south facade. Other buildings, paved roads and parking lots surround the facility on all sides.

Exterior Finish: Insulated vertical Distinctive Feature: box-rib steel panels Flat steel grey panel borders Facility 10: Roof: Distinctive Feature: Enclosed elevated Gambrel over high bay Broad pilasters passage connecting (Manufacturing area) to facility 11, 6 & 7

Figure 13-1. Character-Defining Features of Facility 1

Distinctive Feature: Distinctive Feature: Concrete Wall Bomb baffle

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-9 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 6

Facility 6 is a blackout type manufacturing building in the north-central portion of NWIRP Dallas, southwest of the main entrance. The building is connected to Facilities 7, 49 and 94 on the north and Facilities 1 and 11 to the east by Facility 10, an enclosed elevated passageway. A covered passageway or “staging area” connects Facility 6 to Facility 93 on the south. Facility 6 sits on level terrain surrounded by roads, paving, and other buildings.

Roof: Distinctive Feature: Distinctive Feature: Flat Concrete wall Flat steel grey panel borders

Figure 13-2. Character-Defining Features of Facility 6 Exterior Finish: Distinctive Feature: Insulated vertical Breezeway box-rib steel panels

PAGE 13-10 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 6, continued.

Roof: Roof: Flat (typical) Gambrel with parapet over high bay (Manufacturing area)

Figure 13-3. Character-Defining Features of Facility 6, continued

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-11 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 6, continued.

Door: Roof: Sliding pilot Gambrel over high bay

Figure 13-4. Character-Defining Features of Facility 6, continued Door: Pivoting canopy

PAGE 13-12 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 7

Facility 7 is a three-story office building with basement. Like the facilities it adjoins, Facility 7 was built as a blackout style facility. Its site is level and there is minimal landscaping on the property. A paved parking lot is directly east of Facility 7 and Jefferson Avenue is to the north. Facility 7 shares a common wall on the south with Facility 6 and on the west with Facility 49.

Distinctive Feature: Exterior Finish: Distinctive Feature: Roof: Broad Pilasters Insulated vertical box-rib Bomb baffle Flat steel panels

Figure 13-5. Character-Defining Features of Facility 7 Distinctive Feature: Foundation: Concrete wall Reinforced concrete with basement

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-13 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 7, continued.

Site: Paved parking area Canopy

Figure 13-6. Character-Defining Features of Facility 7, continued Distinctive Feature: Bomb baffle

PAGE 13-14 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 16 Facility 16 is in the northeast portion of NWIRP Dallas, directly east of Facility 20 and northwest of Facility 15. The building consists of a large aircraft hangar and an adjacent service building. Facility 16 was designed and built to blackout standards. An enclosed passageway connects the hangar’s east facade to a service wing. Monumental horizontal tracked doors and door pockets on the north and south facades are the building’s most distinctive architectural feature. Facility 16 sits in an isolated setting, with concrete paving on all sides.

Distinctive Feature: Door: Monumental door Roof: Gambrel Monumental, pockets sliding steel

Figure 13-7. Character-Defining Features of Facility 16

Exterior Finish: Insulated vertical box-rib steel panels

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-15 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 16, continued.

Exterior Finish: Service Building: Insulated vertical Insulated vertical box-rib Enclosed Passageway box-rib steel panels steel panels

Figure 13-8. Character-Defining Features of Facility 16, continued Distinctive Feature: Concrete wall

PAGE 13-16 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 49 Facility 49 is an office building that was built to blackout standards and lacks distinctive stylistic embellishment. It sits on level terrain adjacent to the northern boundary of NWIRP Dallas. Jefferson Boulevard is to the north, an employees’ parking area is to the west; Facility 6 and Facility 7 adjoin Facility 49 on the south and east, respectively.

Roof: Exterior Finish: Distinctive Feature: Flat Insulated vertical Broad pilaster box-rib steel plates

Figure 13-9. Character-Defining Features of Facility 49 Distinctive Feature: Concrete wall

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-17 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 49, continued.

Distinctive Feature: Distinctive Feature: Distinctive Feature: Louvered vents Blackout standards, Concrete wall no windows

Figure 13-10. Character-Defining Features of Facility 49 Door: Paired metal with vision panel and metal canopy

PAGE 13-18 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 94 Facility 94 is located in the northwest portion of NWIRP Dallas, adjacent to the northwest corner of Facility 6. The building was designed to blackout standards exhibits no distinctive stylistic embellishment. Its most prominent physical feature is a monumental vertical-track door on the south facade. A large paved employee parking lot is directly west of Facility 94.

Roof: Door: Distinctive Feature: Exterior Finish: Distinctive Feature: Flat Double metal door Broad pilasters Insulated vertical Blackout standards, no box-rib steel panels windows.

Figure 13-11. Character-Defining Features of Facility 94 Door: Site: Single metal door Sits within a fenced with vision panel and compound of labora- hooded with a metal tory facilities and canopy associated support buildings

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-19 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 94, continued.

Figure 13-12. Character-Defining Features of Facility 94, continued Door: 4-panel vertical metal track

PAGE 13-20 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 97 Facility 97 is a large aircraft hangar. The facility sits isolated from other buildings in the southeast section of NWIRP Dallas. Facility 97’s most distinctive features are an octagonal control tower on the east facade and monumental overhead pivoting doors on the north and south facades. Pavement surrounds the building. As is the case with other resources at the plant, Facility 97 is utilitarian in design and lacks stylistic ornamentation or embellishment.

Distinctive Feature: Distinctive Feature: Features: Roof: Distinctive Feature: Louvered vents Octagonal Tower Steel ladders Flat Flat steel grey panel borders

Door: Metal canopy

Figure 13-13. Character-Defining Features of Facility 97 Distinctive Feature: Exterior Finish: Concrete wall Insulated vertical box-rib steel panels

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-21 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 97, continued.

Figure 13-14. Character-Defining Features of Facility 97, continued Windows: Steel-sash and fixed aluminum-frame

PAGE 13-22 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Character-Defining Features of Facility 97, continued.

Feature: Counterweights for metal canopy door

Figure 13-15. Character-Defining Features of Facility 97, continued

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-23 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

PRESERVATION GUIDELINES The following guidelines are taken from the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, first published by the Department of Figure 13-16. Facility 16 (shown above) and Facility 97 exist in the Interior in 1977 an isolated setting, surrounded by paving. Locating new construc- to assist property tion close to these facilities could diminish their integrity of set- owners, develop- ting. ers, and Federal managers apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards during the project planning stage. They have been edited to be specific to the NWIRP Dallas historic properties.

SITE Recommended • Identify, retain, and preserve buildings and features as well as features of the site that are important in defining their overall historic character. • Ensure that all contracts for new construction contain protective clauses that require immediate stoppage of work should archeological deposits be discovered during construction. • Should archeological deposits be discovered during construction, notify the State Historic Preservation Office for guidance.

Not Recommended • Remove or radically change buildings or site features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the property so that, as a result, the character is diminished. • Introduce new security lighting, fencing, landscaping, or paving materials that are out of character with the setting.

PAGE 13-24 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

EXTERIOR MATERIALS All historic facilities incorporate reinforced concrete up to 5’-6” above the finished first floor and then insulated box-rib steel siding to the roof line. Flat steel plate accent panels at building corners.

Figure 13-17. Concrete and box-ribbed steel siding Recommended are exterior materials used on historic facilities at NWIRP Dallas. • Identifying, retaining, and preserving materials and features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the buildings.

Not Recommended • Removing or radically changing materials or features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. • Replacing a major portion of exterior walls that could be repaired so that, as a result, the building is no longer historic and is essentially new construction. • Removing paint from an historically painted material. • Radically changing the type of paint or coating or its color.

ROOF Recommended • Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. This includes the roof’s shape and roofing material. Figure 13-18. Large expanses of flat roofs with raised, gambrel roofs over final assembly areas are • Protecting and maintain- characteristic of Facilities 1 and 6 at NWIRP Dallas. ing roofs by cleaning gutters and down spouts and replacing deteriorated flashing. Roof sheathing should also be inspect- ed for proper venting to prevent moisture condensation and water penetration.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-25 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Providing adequate anchorage for roofing material to guard against wind damage and moisture penetration.

Not Recommended • Radically changing, damaging, or destroying roofs that are important in defining the over all historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. • Changing the configuration of a roof by adding new features such as dormer windows, vents, or skylights so that the historic character is diminished. Figure 13-19. Concrete bomb baffles at entrances • Failing to clean and are an important character-defining feature of maintain gutters and facilities 1, 6, and 7. down spouts properly so that water and debris collect and cause damage to roof fasten- ers, sheathing, and the underlying structure. • Permitting a leaking roof to remain unprotected so that acceler- ated deterioration of historic building materials occurs.

DOORS AND ENTRANCES Recommended • Identifying, retaining, and preserving entrances—and their functional features—that are important in defining the overall historic character of the buildings. • Protecting and maintaining the materials that make up the door, frame, and associated hardware through appropriate surface treatments such as cleaning, rust removal, limited paint removal, and repainting. • Evaluating the overall condition Figure 13-20. The large aircraft doors on facilities 1, 6, 16, 94, and 97 incorporate “pilot doors” for personnel and of materials to vehicular access.

PAGE 13-26 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

determine whether more than protection and maintenance are required, that is, if repairs to doors and door features are required. • Repairing doors by patching, splicing, consolidating or otherwise reinforcing. Such repair may also include replacement in kind of those parts that are extensively deteriorated. • Maintaining existing door locations and opening sizes. • Replacing in kind an entire door that is too deteriorated to repair using the same design details. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible when replacing doors deteriorated beyond repair, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.

Not Recommended • Removing or radically changing doors that are important in defining the historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. • Cutting new door openings, blocking-in doors, and installing replacement doors that do not fit the historic opening. • Changing the historic appearance of doors through the use of inappropriate designs, materials, finishes, or colors which noticeably change the appearance of the door and frame. • Failing to provide adequate protection of materials on a cyclical basis so that deterioration of the door results. • Retrofitting or replacing— rather than maintaining—doors and frames. • Installing new doors and frames that are incompatible with the building’s historic appearance or obscure, damage, or destroy character-defining features.

WINDOWS Not Recommended • Cutting new window openings.

STRUCTURAL SYSTEM Recommended • Identifying, retaining, and preserving structural systems—and individual features of systems—that are important in defining the overall historic character of a building.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-27 • Protecting and maintaining the structural system by replacing roof flashing. • Examining and evaluating the physical condition of the structural system and its individual features using non- Figure 13-21. Concrete columns, large open spaces, and destructive tech- exposed steel roof trusses are important character-defining features of Facility 6. niques such as X- ray photography. • Repairing the structural system by augmenting or upgrading individual parts or features. • Replacing in kind—or with substitute material—those portions or features of the structural system that are either extensively deteriorated or missing when there are surviving prototypes. Substitute material should convey the same form, design, and overall visual appearance as the historic feature; and, at a minimum, be equal to its load bearing capabilities. • Limiting any new excavations adjacent to historic foundations to avoid undermining the structural stability of the building or an adjacent historic building. Studies should be made to ascer- tain potential damage to archeological resources. • Correcting structural deficiencies in a manner that preserves the structural system and individual character-defining features. • Designing and installing new mechanical or electrical systems that minimize the number of cutouts or holes in structural members.

Not Recommended • Removing, covering, or radically changing features of structural systems which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished. • Utilizing the building in a new way that could overload the existing structural system; or installing equipment or mechanical systems that could damage the structure.

PAGE 13-28 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

• Leaving known structural problems untreated. • Utilizing treatments or products that accelerate the deterioration of structural material. • Failing to provide proper building maintenance so that the structural system deteriorates. • Utilizing destructive probing techniques that will damage or destroy structural material. • Upgrading the building structurally in a manner that diminishes the historic character of the exterior or damaging interior features or spaces. • Replacing a structural member or other feature of the structural system when Figure 13-22. The open plan and exposed structure of it could be augmented and Facility 97 — which are also characteristics of retained. Facilities 1, 6, 16, and 94 — are important features that should be retained. • Installing a visible replacement feature that does not convey the same visual appearance. • Using substitute material that does not equal the load bearing capabilities of the historic material and design or is otherwise physically or chemically incompatible. • Carrying out excavations or regrading adjacent to a historic building that could cause the historic foundation to settle, shift, or fail; or could destroy significant archeological resources. • Radically changing interior spaces or damaging or destroying features or finishes that are character-defining while trying to correct structural deficiencies. • Installing new mechanical and electrical systems or equipment in a manner which results in numerous cuts, splices, or alterations to the structural members.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 13-29 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

INTERIOR SPACES Recommended: • Identifying, retaining, and preserving a floor plan or interior spaces that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building. This includes the size, configuration, proportion, and relationship of rooms and corridors; the relationship of features to spaces; and the spaces themselves such as lobbies, reception halls, audito- riums, and important industrial use spaces. • Accommodating service functions such as toilets, mechanical equipment, and office machines required by a building’s new use in secondary spaces such as first floor service areas or on upper floors. • Installing permanent partitions in secondary spaces; removable partitions that do not destroy the sense of space should be installed when the new use requires the subdivision of character-defining spaces.

Not Recommended: • Radically altering a 52 floor plan or interior spaces, including individual rooms that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished; or altering the floor plan by demolishing principal walls and partitions to create new appearance; or altering or destroying interior spaces by inserting floors, lowering ceilings, or adding or removing walls. • Dividing rooms, lowering ceilings, and damaging or obscuring character-defining features so that a new use can be accommodated in the building. • Installing permanent partitions that damage or obscure character-defining spaces, features, or finishes.

RECOMMENDED SOURCES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1976; revised 1983, 1990.

PAGE 13-30 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Addition to Fuel Calibration Building. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 3 October 1967. Analysis of Leasehold Improvements – Grand Prairie Facility by Chance Vought Corporation. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: November 1967. Analysis of TEMCO Leasehold Improvements in Plant A. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: nd. Barksdale, Ethelbert Courtland. The Genesis of the Aviation Industry in North Texas. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas Press, 1958. Beisel, Rex. “Book on Move From Stratford to Dallas,” [ca. 3 August 1949]. MS, Northrop Grumman Facility Files. Dallas, Texas. Biddle, Wayne. Barons of the Sky. New York: Barnes & Nobel, Inc., 1997. Bilstein, Roger and Jay Miller. Aviation in Texas. Austin, Texas: Texas Monthly Press, Inc., 1985. Brown, Stanley H. Ling: The Rise, Fall, and Return of a Texas Titan. New York: Athenaeum Publishing, 1972. Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II: History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineering Corps, 1940- 1946, Vol. I. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, nd. “Chance Vought Firsts” [ca. 1970]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas. Chance Vought News. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc, various dates. The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. Edited by Davis Donald. New York: Barnes & Nobel, Inc., 1997.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 14-1 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

“Composites at LTV” [ca. 1988]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas. Cornish, Bruce B. General Services Administration Appraisal of 31.97 Acres of Outlying Field #26803 Grand Prairie, Texas. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 14 September 1960. Curtis A. Roos to the United Stated of America General Services Administration, 30 October 1970. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas. Dallas Morning News. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by the Dallas Public Library, various dates. Dallas Times Herald. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by the Dallas Public Library, various dates. “Dallas, Texas: Bureau of Aeronautics Representative to naval Industrial Reserve Aircraft Plant”. Navy Shipping Guide. SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: 1945. Defense Plant Corporation, NAA, Inc. Plant Site: Exhibit I(a) Map Showing Plancor- owned Property Line. College Park, Maryland: Textual Archives Division of the National Archives, nd. Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DoD No. 387 – Sponsor – BuAer. SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: nd. Departmental Industrial Reserve Plant, Chance Vought Aircraft Corporation, Dallas, Texas, DoD No. 387 – Sponsor – BuAer. SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: August 1958. Drummond, D.F. The Passing of American Neutrality: 1937-1941. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1955 Eltscher, Louis R. and Edward M. Young. Curtiss-Wright: Greatness and Decline. New York: Twayne Publishing, 1998.

PAGE 14-2 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Empires of Industry, “World War II Aircraft,” The History Channel, 29 June 1999. Engineer’s Final Report of Defense Plant Corporation Plancor 25, North American Aviation, Inc., Grand Prairie, Texas. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Branch of the National Archives, College Park, Maryland: 1 September 1944. Engineer’s Semi – Final Report of Defense Plant Corporation Plancor 25, North American Aviation, Inc., Grand Prairie, Texas. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Branch of the National Archives, College Park, Maryland: 1 October 1944. Environmental Statement for the Disposal of the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 16 June 1971. Executive Order 11724 Installation Survey Report. Historical Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: May 1974. Fairchild, Byron and Jonathan Grossman. United States Army in World War II: The Army and Industrial Manpower. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959. Final Report of Accountability. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Branch of the National Archives, College Park, Maryland: nd. Fine, L. and J.A. Remington. The Corps of Engineers: Construction in the United States. Washington, D.C.: United States Army Office of Chief of Military History, 1972. The Flying V News. Vertical File Collection Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates. Ginter, Steve. Chance Vought F7U Cutlass. Simi Valley, California: Steve Ginter, 1982. General Services Administration – Utilization and Disposal Service. Real Property Status Record for Naval Weapons Industrial

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 14-3 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Reserve Plant No. 387. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: nd. General Correspondence Records of the Office Services Division/Administrative Services of the Navy’s Bureau of Aeronautics. Washington, D.C.: Downtown Branch of the National Archives, various dates. “Government-Owned Industrial Plants for Sale or Lease,” The Wall Street Journal, 10 December 1945, np. “Grand Prairie to Get $6.5 million Airplane Factory: Plant at Hensley Field First in Nations’ Defense Program, Work Planned to Start Soon,” The Grand Prairie Texan, 23 August 1940, p. 1. Green, William and Gordon Swanborough. The World’s Great Fighter Aircraft. New York: Crescent Books, 1981. Greer, Thomas H. The Development of Air Doctrine in the Army Arm: 1917-1941. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University press, 1955. Grossnick, Roy A. United States Naval Aviation, 1910-1995. Washington, D.C.: Naval Historical Center, 1997. GSA Introduction to Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 12 February 1970. “Guided Missiles.” Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1997, np. “Guided Missiles.” Encarta ’97 Encyclopedia Deluxe Edition, 1997, np. The Handbook of Texas, Vol. I. Edited by Walter Prescott Webb and H. Bailey Carroll. Austin, Texas: The Texas State Historical Association, 1952. Hanley, Craig. “High Flying Forties,” Dallas Magazine, 10 October 1986, p. 44-50. History of the Dallas Naval Air Station, October 1940 to 31 December 1958. Naval Historical Center at the Washington Naval Yard, Washington, D.C.: nd.

PAGE 14-4 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Historical Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas. Dallas, Texas: Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates. International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 1. Edited by Thomas Derdak. Chicago, Illinois: St. James Press, 1988. International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 11. Edited by Paula Kepos. Chicago, Illinois: St. James Press, 1994. Jones, Jesse H. and Edward Angly. Fifty Billion Dollars: My Thirteen Years with the RFC, 1932-1945. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1951. Jones, Lloyd S. U.S. Naval Fighters: Navy/Marine Corps, 1922- 1980s. Fallbrook, California: Aero Publishing, Inc., 1977. Kane, Kimberly. Historic Context for the World War II Ordnance Department’s Government-Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) Industrial Facilities. No. 1. Fort Worth, Texas: U.S. Army Materiel Command Series Report of Investigation, October 1995. Klagsbrunn, Hans A. “Some Aspects of War Plant Financing,” The American Economic Review, Vol. XXXIII. No. 1, part 2 (March 1943): p. 199-127. “Korean War”. Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1997, np. Leasehold Improvements over $25,000. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 11 April 1974. Lt. G.W. Hamilton, CEC, USN to C.E. Rau, 18 January 1955. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas. LTV Profile. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates. “Manufacturing Technology Contracts” [ca. 3 October 1986]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas. Moran, Gerald P. A Short History of Vought Aeronautics. Northrop Grumman Facility Files and Archives: nd. Munson, Kenneth. Bombers: Patrol and Transport Aircraft, 1939- 1945. London: Blandford Press, Ltd., 1969.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 14-5 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Munson, Kenneth. Fighters: Attack and Training Aircraft, 1939-1945. London: Blandford Press, Ltd., 1969. NAS Dallas Historical Record. SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: nd. Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Buildings and Improvements Constructed By Corporate and Navy Funding as of 31 December 1978. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1978. Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Leasehold Improvements Vought Corporation Funded, Completed 30 June 1968. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1977. Northrop Grumman Reports 29% Increase in Net Income,” PR Newswire, 18 October 2000, np. “Northrop Grumman Completes Aerostructures Sale to Carlyle,” PR Newswire, 24 July 2000, 12:05. “Notes on North American and TEMCO in Years 1941-1945” [ca. 21 December 1982]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas. Olson, James S. Saving Capitalism: The Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the New Deal, 1933-1940. Princeton, New Jersey: The Princeton University Press, 1988. Plancor 25 Manufacturing and Assembly Plant: Appraisal, Buildings, Utilities, Yard, and Land. Records of the Navy’s Real Property Case Files, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 21 May 1945. Plancor 25 North American Aviation, Inc.: Buildings and Installations. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Division of the National Archives, College, Park, Maryland: nd. Poynor, Ticky. “You Can Ration Fashion,” North American Skyline, Vol. 4, no. 3, (May- June 1943): pp. 8-10. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas. Dallas, Texas: Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates.

PAGE 14-6 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Rae, John B. Climb to Greatness: The American Aircraft Industry, 1920-1960. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1968. Real Property Cards. Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas, originals obtained from the SeaBee Museum at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California: 1941-1955. Real Property Card Listing NWIRP – Dallas, Texas. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1977. Record Report on Paint Hangar Building No. 104 and Paint Stripping Building No. 105 at NIRAP Dallas. Prepared by ROICC, NoA-1105. Dallas, Texas: Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, 26 January 1957. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property. Ft. Worth, Texas: NARA Southwest Region, various dates. Records of the Navy’s Real Property Case Files. Ft. Worth, Texas: NARA Southwest Region, various dates. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Defense Plant Corporation. College Park, Maryland: Textual Archives Division of the National Archives, various dates. Records of the War Assets Administration – Real Property Disposal Case Files. Ft. Worth, Texas: NARA Southwest Region, various dates. Report of Change Order Board Meeting, 23 February 1955. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas. Restrictions Covering the Sale of NWIRP Dallas. Records of the War Assets Administration – Real Property Disposal Case Files, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: nd. Riddle, Donald H. The Truman Committee: A Study in Congressional Responsibility. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1964. Rubenstein, Murray and Richard M. Goldman. To Join with Eagles: Curtiss-Wright Aircraft, 1903-1965. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974.

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 14-7 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Schedule 2: Buildings, Installation, Leasehold Improvements, and Service Costs. Records of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Defense Plant Corporation, Textual Archives Division of the National Archives, College Park, Maryland: nd. Schoeni, Arthur L. “Father of the Zero?” Air Classics, Vol. 16, no. 2 (February 1980): pp. 58-65, 99. Schoeni, Arthur L. “The First Corsairs,” Air Classics, Vol. 15, no. 9 (September 1979): pp. 14-27. Schoeni, Arthur L. “Jet Aircraft Built By Chance Vought Corporation” [ca. 1972]. MS, Northrop Grumman Retirees Club Collection. Dallas, Texas. Secretary of the Navy. Energy Conservation Awards Program, Fiscal Year 1982. Dallas, Texas: Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, 1982. Smith, R. Elberton. The United States in World War II: The Army and Economic Mobilization. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959. Special Disposal Plan. Records of the War Assets Administration – Real Property Disposal Case Files, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 14 December 1970. Summary of Acquisition Values of Facilities Provided by NWIRP Contractor. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 1983. Stumpf, David. K. Regulus: The Forgotten Weapon. Paducah, Kentucky: Turner Publishing Company, 1996. Tate, James P. The Army and its Air Corps: Army Policy Toward Aviation, 1919-1941. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University Press, 1985. TEMCO Tidings. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates. Trimble, William F. Wings for the Navy: A History of the Naval Aircraft Factory, 1917- 1956. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 1990. U.S. Civilian Production Administration. Industrial Mobilization for War: History of the War Production Board and Predecessor

PAGE 14-8 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Agencies, 1940-1945. Washington, D.C.: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1947. U.S. Department of the Navy. Detailed Inventory of the Naval Shore Facilities Publication. Records of the Navy’s Real Property Case Files, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: 2 February 1969. U.S. Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: Attorneys Report on Title. Records of GSA’s Resources Management of Federal Property, NARA Southwest Region, Ft. Worth, Texas: nd. U.S. Navy A-7E. Dallas, Texas: Vought Corporation: nd. Vatter, Harold G. The U.S. Economy in World War II. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. “Vietnam War.” Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1997, np. Vought Aircraft History. Dallas, Texas: Vought Corporation, nd. Vought and the Space Program. Dallas, Texas: Vought Corporation, nd. Vought Dallas Facilities. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1977. “Vought Name Returns to Aerospace Industry with Carlyle Purchase of Northrop Grumman Aerostructures Business,” PR Newswire, 24 July 2000, 12:12. Vought Owned Miscellaneous Severable Buildings on NWIRP Property. Property Records at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Dallas, Texas: 31 December 1983. The Vought Vanguard. Dallas, Texas: Vertical File Collection Maintained by Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., various dates. Wagner, Ray. American Combat Planes. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968. White, Gerald T. Billions for Defense: Government Financing by the Defense Plant Corporation during World War II. University, Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1980. White, Gerald T. “Financing Industrial Expansion for War: The Origins of the Defense Plant Corporation Leases,” The

NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PAGE 14-9 I NTEGRATED C ULTURAL R ESOURCES M ANAGEMENT P LAN

Journal of Economic History, Vol. IX, no. 2, (November 1949): pp. 159-183. Wings for the Navy: A History of Chance Vought Aircraft. Stratford, Connecticut: Chance Vought Aircraft: 1943. Yenne, Bill. Rockwell: The Heritage of North American. New York: Crescent Books, 1989. Yoshpe, Harry B. and Charles F. Franke. National Security Management: Production for Defense. Washington, D.C.: Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1968. INTERNET SOURCES http://archive.dallasnews.com www.collinsmuseum.com/regulus www.geocities.com www.hoovers.com www.scs.wsu.edu www.thecarlylegroup.com/html www.vectorsite.tripod.com www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight

PAGE 14-10 NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS APPENDIX A

SHPO CORRESPONDENCE

Johnson, Ron (Efdsouth), 06:46 AM 7/1/2002 -0400, FW: NWIRP DALLAS ICRMP Page 1 of 2

From: "Johnson, Ron (Efdsouth)" To: "David Moore* (E-mail)" Subject: FW: NWIRP DALLAS ICRMP Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 06:46:17 -0400 Importance: high X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)

David, please see Linda Roark's comments below, and see that the SHPO's letter of 5 April 2002 is included in Appendix A of the NWIRP Dallas ICRMP. Thanks...... Ron

-----Original Message----- From: Linda Roark [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 5:50 PM To: Johnson, Ron (Efdsouth) Cc: Thomas Eisenhour Subject: NWIRP DALLAS ICRMP Importance: High

(original in mail)

June 28, 2002

Mr. R.N. Johnson Historic Preservation Officer Department of the Navy, Southern Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command P.O. Box 190010 Charleston, S.C. 29419-9010

Re: Project review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Dallas, Dallas County (NAVY/106)

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Thank you for having Tom Eisenhour, of HHM Inc., provide our office with a copy of the revised Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan for the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas. This letter serves as comment from the State Historic Preservation Officer, the Executive Director of the Texas Historical Commission.

The review staff, led by Linda Roark, has completed its review of the document provided. The SHPO letter of October 22, 1999, regarding eligibility of three buildings at the plant is included in Appendix A. To avoid confusion with the rest of the document, we recommend that our letter of April 5, 2002, in which we concur that four additional properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, also be included in Appendix A.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to review this document. If you have any questions concerning our review or if we can be of further assistance, please contact Linda Roark at 512/463-9122.

Yours truly,

/signed/ for: F. Lawerence Oaks, State Historic Preservation Officer

Printed for David Moore 7/29/2002

APPENDIX B

PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

28 February 2002

DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT AMONG THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY AND THE TEXAS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CONCERNING THE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT, PLANT NO. 387, DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

WHEREAS, the Department of the Navy (Navy) is responsible for the implementation of legislative mandates ordered by the Congress of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, the United States Navy has executed a renewal of the lease of the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) Dallas to Northrop Grumman Corporation, which, in turn, sub-let the NWIRP to Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. (Lessee), in accordance with Public Law 106-65, for parcels of real property consisting of approximately 314 acres and comprising the NWIRP No. 387, Dallas, Texas (NWIRP Dallas); and,

WHEREAS, in consultation with the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), it has been determined by the Navy that the operations and maintenance of this property constitutes an undertaking as set forth at 36 CFR, Part 800.3(a) and 36 CFR, Part 800.9(a); and

WHEREAS, the Navy has conducted an Intensive survey of the land and buildings which compose the NWIRP Dallas, during which seven buildings (Buildings 1,6, 7, 16, 49, 94, and 97), hereinafter referred to as “historic properties” (Appendix 1), were found to meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and

WHEREAS, in light of the existence of NRHP-eligible properties, the Navy conducted and prepared an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) which establishes a program for the maintenance and protection of the aforementioned historic properties, which has been reviewed and concurred in by the SHPO; and,

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), the Navy duly consulted with the SHPO; the City of Dallas Planning and Development Office; The City of Grand Prairie, Texas; the Dallas County Historic Commission; the Preservation Dallas Commission; the J. Erik Johnsson Central Library; and the general public though a formal public hearing concerning the contents and programs outlined in the intensive survey and the ICRMP; and,

WHEREAS, the consulting parties identified above have concurred in the Navy’s established program for operations and maintenance of the NWIRP Dallas and its historic properties; and

WHEREAS, the Navy has consulted with the SHPO, Texas Historical Commission, and the consulting parties pursuant to 36 CFR, Part 800 (Regulations), regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C., Section 470f), Section 110(f) of the same NHPA (16 U.S.C., Section 470h.2[f]), and Section 111 of the same NHPA (16 U.S.C., Section 470h.3); and

WHEREAS, there is an agreed upon mechanism for the amendment of this Agreement as future circumstances may require (Appendix 3); and

NOW, THEREFORE, the Navy and the SHPO agree that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations to take into account the effect(s) of the undertaking on historic properties.

STIPULATIONS

The Navy will ensure that the following stipulations are implemented:

I. Architectural and Archeological Properties

A. For the purposes of this Agreement, it is understood that:

1. Based upon the investigation, identification and evaluations processes discussed in the Survey, NWIRP Dallas’ historic properties are the only structures, which meet the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the NRHP, and they are eligible under Criteria “A”, association with significant events. The physical description and historic context of each of the historical properties is contained in the intensive survey and the ICRMP.

2. No indications of archeological deposits were found within the boundaries of NWIRP Dallas, due to the fact that the entire complex is, for all practical purposes, paved from boundary to boundary, and where there is no paving, the soil has been severely disturbed over the years. Therefore, it has been determined that there is little possibility of the existence of significant archeological properties existing which might be

2 eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. However, Appendix 2 has been prepared and is included in this Programmatic Agreement (PA) in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archeological deposits.

II. Area of Potential Effect (APE)

Although some future conveyance activities may induce changes in population distribution, traffic, and/or land use that extend beyond the boundaries of NWIRP Dallas properties, and/or parcels on which new construction might occur, the future effect of these changes on potential historic properties is uncertain at this time. However, in an effort to accommodate all future actions that might take place, the entire 314-acre site of NWIRP Dallas has been defined as the area of potential effect, in spite of the fact that it contains only seven (7) historic properties. In cases of dispute over the APE of this undertaking, the conditions set forth in this PA will be binding on all parties to the PA until such time as it is modified through formal negotiations between the principal signatory parties.

III. NEPA Coordination

A. It is mutually understood that many of the terms of this agreement will be carried out after the Navy has complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and filed its Record of Decision (ROD), Finding of No significant Impact (FONSI), or Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). Nevertheless:

1. The Navy must meet all its NHPA responsibilities for the federal property described and identified herein; and,

2. Whenever it is feasible for the Navy to carry out the terms of this PA prior to filing the ROD, FONSI, or CATEX, the Navy will do so; and

3. When it is infeasible to complete the actions required by Section 106 of the NHPA prior to issuance of a CATEX, FONSI (assuming a FONSI is otherwise prior, given the affects on historic properties), or ROD, the Navy will stipulate in the CATEX, FONSI, or ROD the specific areas in which the Navy has not complied with the Act. A conveyance or other associated activities which could affect historic properties shall be held in abeyance until the actions necessary to assess and take into account the effects on historic properties have been completed consistent with the terms set forth in this PA; and,

4. For the Navy, the Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) or his designee will review the draft ROD or FONSI for any actions requiring NEPA documentation to ensure that outstanding historic preservation requirements are adequately addressed in these documents; and,

3 5. The Navy will ensure that no actions that could result in effects on existing or potential historic properties are undertaken pursuant to a ROD, FONSI, or CATEX until the terms of this PA have been carried out.

B. The Navy will coordinate the NEPA process with its lessee(s). In accordance with NEPA requirements, NEPA documentation for NWIRP Dallas will:

1. Identify known or potential historic properties and past studies; and,

2. Identify the potential for historic properties to be affected by the identified action(s); and,

3. Identify the steps necessary for the Navy to meet its Section 106 responsibilities under the NHPA.

C. The level of documentation in Stipulation III, B, 1-3, above will be commensurate with the type of environmental document prepared. Only brief overviews and summaries of impacts, if any, are expected in a CATEX. When an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared, a more detailed presentation of data will be included

D. The Navy will send the SHPO any Draft EA (DEA) or Draft EIS (DEIS) for their review and comment. There will be a 30-day review period from the date received during the public review and comment period. The information included in these documents will constitute the first public effort in the process to assess the potential effects on the historic properties, as defined in 36 CFR, Parts 800.4 and 800.5.

E. The Navy will ensure that copies of the Final EA or Final EIS are provided to the SHPO.

F. The Navy shall provide a copy of this Agreement, its attachments and appendices, and the materials listed in Stipulation IX of this PA, to appropriate Commanders, Commanding Officers, Major Claimants, and other elements of the Navy responsible for any actions necessitating NEPA compliance.

IV. Identification and Evaluation

A. Identification and Evaluation Process

1. In accordance with the requirements of Section 110 of the NHPA and the Regulations, the Navy has conducted an intensive survey, which identified and evaluated the NRHP-eligibility of properties located within the boundaries of NWIRP Dallas. This survey, in its preliminary form,

4 was submitted to the Texas SHPO for review and comment, and has been made available to interested parties of the general public, the local governments, the Dallas Landmark Commission, and the City of Dallas, and their comments solicited. All comments received were taken into account, and proposed changes considered valid were incorporated into the final document. A copy of the final document was provided the SHPO, the City of Dallas, the concerned Navy commands, the Dallas Public Library, and the general public was notified of its availability for review. No general public comments were received.

2. During the conduct of the investigation detailed in the intensive survey document, only the historic properties previously identified were found to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, and that eligibility was based on the buildings meeting the criterion set forth in Criterion “A”. No archeological properties were discovered which met the criteria for inclusion in the NRHP, and as a result it was the determination of the Navy that no archeological historic properties exist within the boundaries of NWIRP Dallas. The Texas SHPO has concurred in that determination.

3. The Navy will ensure the identification of significant records and objects related to the historic past of NWIRP Dallas, and these records and/or objects will be archived at a repository in accordance with the National Records Act or as specified by the Secretary of the Navy, in accordance with the requirements of the NHPA, should NWIRP Dallas ever be conveyed to a non-Federal entity.

4. The Navy will provide guidance to those lessee personnel assigned to NWIRP Dallas to ensure that historic properties are not inadvertently damaged, destroyed, or allowed to deteriorate during their operations.

V. Interim Protection of Historic Properties

A. NWIRP Dallas is currently sub-leased to the Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. (Lessee), who has been assigned maintenance, repair, and upkeep responsibilities for the property under the terms of their lease agreement, under the guidance of the Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC), which maintains quality control on behalf of the Navy. The lease agreement also stipulates that no modification, additions, alterations, repairs, or new construction to any of the facilities are to be carried out without the express written permission of the Department of the Navy. Additionally, the Lessee has been advised by correspondence made in an addendum to the Assignment and Transfer of Rights and Duties that the historic properties are NRHP-eligible buildings, and that no alterations, modifications, or other actions which have the potential to affect the character of the buildings can be undertaken without specific written approval of the Navy. Thus, all parties to this agreement are assured that compliance with the

5 requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA will continue to be maintained throughout the period of the lease.

B. Any projects that the Lessee may propose will be presented to the HPO, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command (SOUTHNAVFAC), who will conduct the required Section 106 consultation concerning those projects on behalf of the Navy.

C. In order to ensure interim and long-term protection of the historic properties, the Navy has prepared recordation documentation of those seven (7) historic buildings. This documentation has been prepared in accordance with SHPO standards, and includes a narrative historic context, copies of selected original architectural drawings, interior and exterior photographs, and completed Texas State File forms. This documentation has been provided to the SHPO, the Lessee, and the Navy.

VI. Exemptions to Consultation Requirements

A. Undertakings carried out in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Standards) and NAVFAC MO-913, Historic Structures Preservation Manual (MO-913) will not require review by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, unless:

1. the undertaking is found during consultation between the Navy and the SHPO to have an adverse effect on historic properties; and/or

2. the Navy and the SHPO cannot agree on measures to mitigate the adverse effect(s).

B. Should the SHPO object to any mitigation measures that the Navy proposes, the Navy will follow the steps described in Stipulation XI, “Dispute Resolution”, below.

C. The following are undertakings which do not require SHPO review:

1. The following types of undertakings shall be considered to have no effect on historic properties and may proceed without notice to the SHPO:

a. Sidewalk, street, and storm gutter repairs;

b. Work remote to the historic properties, except exterior work on properties directly adjacent or where new construction will be directly adjacent;

6 c. Introduction or removal of temporary storage facilities or garbage disposal facilities adjacent to the historic properties;

d. Maintenance of existing landscaping and trees;

e. Removal of dead, dying, or diseased unsalvageable vegetation and/or trees;

f. Interior rehabilitation of buildings other than the historic properties;

g. Minor, in-kind repair or replacement of building or site features, elements, or materials of historic properties such that original/significant historic fabric is matched in materials, size, dimension, color, texture, finish, construction details, and all other visual qualities;

+ Repair or replacement of in-kind roof + Repair or replacement of existing siding or replacement of deteriorated siding to match existing + Replacement of in-kind doors and door hardware + Repair, replacement, or installation of gutters and downspouts + Repairs to or in-kind replacement of existing windows + Repairs to or in-kind replacement of existing screen windows and storm doors and windows

h. Minor modifications to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), plumbing, or electrical systems provided that such work does not affect the exteriors or significant interior features of the historic properties.

i. Energy conservation methods that are not readily visible such as interior insulation, caulking, and weather-stripping

j. Repainting of previously painted exterior or interior surfaces of the historic properties

k. In-kind replacement of window panes

D. Rehabilitation

1. All rehabilitation undertakings on the historic properties shall adhere to the Standards and MO-913.

7 2. Except for those undertakings consisting of actions not requiring review, the Lessee will provide project documentation to DCMC on each undertaking, who will, in turn, forward that documentation to the SOUTHNAVFAC HPO, who will then carry out consultation in accordance with this PA with the SHPO on behalf of the Navy.

3. All rehabilitation undertakings that will significantly change the exterior of a building or buildings directly adjacent to the historic properties shall be designed so that the exterior of such building(s) will be compatible with the historic properties in terms of size, scale, color, material, and character. Except for those undertakings not requiring review, as described in Stipulation VI.C, the Lessee will provide project documentation to DCMC as set forth above for forwarding to the SOUTHNAVFAC HPO and subsequent consultation with the Texas SHPO.

4. If the Texas SHPO determines that the proposed rehabilitation of the historic properties does not adhere to the Standards, or that rehabilitation of an immediately adjacent building will have an adverse visual effect on the historic properties, further review will proceed pursuant to 36 CFR, Part 800.5 (e).

E. New Construction

1. New construction undertakings immediately adjacent to the historic properties shall adhere to the recommended approaches in the Standards that apply to new construction, specifically Standards 8, 9, and 10.

2. To ensure adherence to the recommended approaches set forth in the Standards, the Navy shall:

a. Provide complete documentation at the Design Development Phase of the project, including a description of the proposed project, siting, and setting to the SHPO for a review period of thirty (30) days from receipt; and,

b. Provide 35% design information to the SHPO for a review period of fifteen (15) days from receipt; and,

c. Provide progressive design information to the SHPO for a review period of fifteen (15) days from receipt if the Navy determines that said design is a radical departure from the 35% design in siting, footprint, massing, materials, or façade arrangement and appearance; and,

d. No response from the SHPO within the agreed upon review period shall be understood to indicate no objection to the undertaking or design, and a completion of the review and consultation process for the specific project being considered; and,

e. If at any point during its review, the SHPO objects to the plans for new construction, the Navy will follow the steps described in Stipulation XI, “Dispute Resolution”, below.

F. Demolition

1. If a proposed undertaking involves the demolition of any historic property, or any portion thereof, the following documentation shall be provided to the SHPO and the Council for their concurrent review, provided that property has not already been documented:

a. Current exterior and interior black-and-white photographs;

b. Current structural analysis report, if pertinent;

c. Reasons for proposed demolition; and

d. Alternatives to demolition considered, and reasons for their rejection as viable.

2. If the SHPO does not object to the proposed demolition within a period of thirty (30) days from receipt, the Navy shall ensure that the historic property is recorded in accordance with the recordation level recommendations of the SHPO. Should Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation be required, HABS must accept the recordation, and the SHPO and the Council must be notified of its acceptance, prior to demolition. Otherwise, the SHPO must accept the documentation prepared to SHPO standards. In any event, a copy of the recordation documents will be provided the SHPO at the time of the acceptance notification.

3. If at any point during its review, the SHPO objects to the proposed demolition, the Navy will follow the steps described in Stipulation XI, “Dispute Resolution”, below.

4. If demolition of a building, which is not a historic property, is proposed, the Navy shall notify the SHPO fifteen (15) days prior to start of demolition.

G. Protection of Archeological Resources

1. If a proposed undertaking involves excavation in an area of NWIRP Dallas which has not been previously disturbed, the Navy shall:

a. Provide a description of the site to the SHPO for a review period of fifteen (15) days from receipt;

b. No response from the SHPO after the agreed upon review period shall be taken to indicate no objection to the undertaking and a completion of the Section 106 process for the specific project.

2. In accordance with 36 CFR, Part 800.11(a), if previously undetected archeological resources are discovered during project activities, the Navy will cause to stop any and all activity that could have an effect upon the resource(s) and carry out those steps contained in Appendix 2, Archaeological Data Recovery Project Standards.

a. If further archeological investigation is required, any data recovery will be performed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation (44 FR 44734-37) and take into account the Council’s publication, Treatment of Archaeological Properties.

b. If both the Navy and the SHPO determine that further investigation is not necessary, activities may resume with no further action required.

3. The Navy will actively ensure compliance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and will advise all contract and Navy personnel against illegal collection of cultural materials, should they be encountered, and of the penalties for such collection imposed by ARPA. Appropriate measures will be developed for the protection from looting and/or vandalism of historic and archeological resources under ARPA in consultation with the SHPO.

VII. Treatment and Management

A. The Navy will ensure that the effects of all undertakings on historic properties are treated in accordance with the determinations and agreements reached pursuant to Stipulation V. above.

B. The Navy will ensure that the provisions of the ARPA (P.L. 96-95) and the NAGPRA (P.L. 101-601) are implemented, as appropriate.

VIII. Public Involvement

A. To the fullest extent possible and appropriate, the Navy will work with the Leasee, the SHPO, and other interested parties to develop treatments and/or management plans to ensure compatible reuse of the historic buildings.

B. The Navy and the SHPO will consider the need for additional consulting parties consistent with the Council’s publication Public Participation in Section 106 Review: A Guide for Agency Officials (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1989).

C. To the extent possible and practical, public participation shall be coordinated with public participation under NEPA.

D. The Navy has prepared an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) for NWIRP Dallas, which establishes guidelines and procedures for the maintenance and management of all historic resources located at NWIRP Dallas. This ICRMP also examines, assesses, and applies the NRHP eligibility criteria to the nineteen (19) buildings and structures constructed at NWIRP Dallas during the period 1950 through 1956. A consensual agreement on the NRHP- eligibility those nineteen buildings or structures has been reached through consultation with the SHPO, and those eligible properties have been incorporated into the list of historic resources addressed by this agreement.

IX. Standards and Guidelines

A. Standards and guidelines for implementing this PA include, but are not limited to:

a. Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) Instruction 5090.1B, Ch. 23;

b. Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Instruction 4000.35A;

c. 36 CFR, Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties;

d. The Section 110 Guidelines: Guidelines for Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (532 FR 4727-4746);

e. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (National Park Service, 1990); and,

f. Preparing Agreement Documents (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1989).

X. Documentation and Monitoring

A. The Navy shall retain documentation for all operations, maintenance, and development undertakings, specifically all undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties or known/unknown archeological sites, for a period not less than two years after completion of the undertaking. This documentation shall include photographs showing existing conditions prior to project start, work progress, work description, and photographs of the completed project. Should the property be transferred outside Federal jurisdiction, copies of all project files, active and inactive, will be provided the recipient of the property.

B. The SHPO may perform on-site review of completed or in-progress projects to ensure compliance with this PA. The SHPO will notify the Navy in writing, no less than thirty (30) days prior to an on-site review, and subsequent to the review, the SHPO shall provide the Navy with a summarized report of visit findings. All visits must be coordinated with the HPO, SOUTHNAVFAC.

C. A report summarizing historic and archeological resource projects shall be provided the SHPO annually on a date designated by the SHPO in writing. Summaries of the work accomplished by each project shall be approximately one concise paragraph in length.

D. The SHPO may provide training to Navy and/or leasee personnel on the responsibilities pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA.

XI. Dispute Resolution

A. Should either party to this PA object to any actions proposed in relation to an undertaking pursuant to this PA, the Navy shall consult with the SHPO to attempt to resolve the objection. If the Navy determines that the objection cannot be resolved, it shall request the comments of the Council pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.5(b)(2). Any Council comment provided in response to such a request shall be taken into account by the Navy in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7(c) with reference only to the subject of the dispute; the responsibility of the Navy to carry out all actions under this PA that are not the subject of the dispute shall remain unchanged. The Navy will take public comments into account, and a formal response to those comments will be made.

B. If either of the parties to this Agreement believe that the terms of the PA cannot be carried out, or that an amendment to the terms of the PA is required, that party shall immediately notify the other signatory to the Agreement and request consultation to amend this agreement. Appendix 3 provides the format for such an amendment proposal. The process of amending the PA shall be the same as that exercised in creating the original PA.

12 C. The Historic Preservation Officer, Southern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, shall serve as the Advisory Council and Texas SHPO’s single point of contact with the Navy in all matters pertaining to historic properties at NWIRP Dallas, as stipulated by the Commander, Naval Air Systems Command.

XII. Anti-Deficiency Act

A. All requirements set forth in this PA requiring the expenditure of Navy funds are expressly subject to the availability of appropriations and the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C., Section 1341). No obligation undertaken by the Navy under the terms of this Agreement shall require or be interpreted to require a commitment to expend funds not appropriated for a particular purpose.

B. If the Navy cannot perform any obligation set forth in this PA due to the unavailability of funds, the Navy, the SHPO, and if appropriate, the Council intend the remainder of the PA to be executed. Any obligation under the PA, which cannot be performed due to unavailability of funds, must be renegotiated between the principal signatories.

XIII. Renewal

A. This PA shall be in effect for five (5) years from the date of execution, which shall be the date of the final signature. Before the end of the fifth year, the PA shall be reviewed by the Navy, the SHPO, and if appropriate, the Council, for possible needs for modifications, termination, or extension. At the request of any of the signatories, this PA may be reviewed for possible modifications, termination or extension at any time.

13 XIV. Termination/Execution of Agreement

This Agreement will terminate upon official notification to the SHPO and the Council, if appropriate, that all NWIRP Dallas properties have been transferred, or otherwise disposed, by the Navy, and that the Navy no longer holds any property interest in the property now known and defined as the NWIRP Dallas.

Execution and implementation of this PA establishes that the Navy has satisfied its responsibilities under Section 106 and 110(f) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, for all individual or collective undertakings carried out under this PA and as outlined in this PA.

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY:

______Date: ______(John Ball, CAPT, USN, NAVAIR Facilities Director))

FOR THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION:

______Date: ______(F. Lawerence Oaks, Texas State Historic Preservation Officer)

ACCEPTED BY THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION:

______Date: ______(Executive Director, ACHP)

CONCUR FOR THE CITY OF DALLAS:

______Date: ______

CONCUR FOR VOUGHT AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC.:

______Date: ______

14 APPENDIX 1 – NWIRP DALLAS HISTORIC PROPERTIES

15 APPENDIX 2

ARCHEOLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY PROJECT STANDARDS

In the event that any ground disturbance activity conducted at NWIRP Dallas should unearth deposits or artifacts which have the potential to be of sufficient significance as to meet the criterion for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, the following standards apply:

Archeological data recovery shall be carried out in accordance with a data recovery plan developed in consultation by the Navy with the Texas State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The data recovery plan shall be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Documentation (48 FR 447344-37) and pertinent standards and guidelines of the Texas SHPO, and shall take into account the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (Council) publication, Treatment of Archaeological Properties (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, [draft] 1980), subject to any pertinent revisions the Council may make in the publication prior to completion of the data recovery plan. The plan shall, at a minimum, specify:

1. The property, properties, or portions of properties where data recovery is to be carried out;

2. Any property, properties, or portions of properties that will be transferred without data recovery, and the rationale for doing so;

3. The research questions to be addressed through the data recovery, with an explanation of their relevance and importance;

4. The field work methodology to be used in analysis, with an explanation of its relevance to the research questions;

5. The methodology to be used in analysis, with an explanation of its relevance to the research questions;

6. The methodology to be used in data management and dissemination of data, including a schedule;

7. The manner in which recovered materials will be disposed of, in a manner consistent with State of Texas law regarding disposition of archaeological materials and recovered human remains;

16 8. The manner in which field notes and other records of field work and analysis will be preserved and disposed of;

9. The methodology to be used to involve the interested public in the data recovery process;

10. The methodology to be used in disseminating results of the work to the interested public;

11. The methodology by which parties with special interests in the property, if any, will be kept informed of the work and afforded the opportunity to participate, and,

12. The schedule for the submission of progress reports and final reports to the Texas SHPO and others.

Records of data recovery fieldwork and analysis shall be retained in an archive or other curatorial facility approved by the Texas SHPO and disseminated as appropriate to facilitate research and management without unduly endangering historic properties. Material recovered from data recovery projects shall be curated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79, except that human remains and artifacts associated with graves shall be treated in conformance with requirements of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (Public Law 101-601).

17 APPENDIX 3

AMENDMENT FORM Amendment #

Date:

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

AMONG: THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, AND THE TEXAS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, FOR THE: OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE NAVAL WEAPONS INDUSTRIAL RESERVE PLANT, DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

1. Need for Amendment: (Describe briefly)

2. Proposed Amendment Narrative: (Specify)

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY:

By: Date: (Typed Name, Rank, Title and Command)

TEXAS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER:

By: Date: (Typed Name and Title)

ACCEPTED FOR THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION:

By: Date: (Typed Name and Title)