Lexington-Blue Grass Depot, Lexington

Source document Quoted word for word from HAER KY,34-LEX.V,4-. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity is one of several facilities established at the beginning of World War II for the receipt, storage and issue of ammunition and other supplies. Historical Report Prepared by: Thomas Holtz, Barbara Hightower and William Brenner, Prepared for Transmittal by: Robie S. Lange, HABS/HAER, Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page Si

Executive Summary

The Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity, a part of the U.S. Army Depot Systems Command, receives, stores, issues, and disposes of ammunition and designated general supplies; and services radiological, electronic warfare, and general electronic equipment. The activity consists of two areas: the 780 acre Lexington Facility located 14 miles east of Lexington, Kentucky, and the Blue Grass Facility which occupies acres six miles south of Richmond, Kentucky. The Lexington Facility (formerly the Lexington Signal Depot) was constructed in as a major Signal Corps depot for storage of ground radar, other classified radio equipment, and special vehicles required to transport radar. The Blue Grass Facility was constructed in by the Ordnance Department as an ammunition storage facility.

The two installations were merged in and redesignated in as a combined depot activity. There are no Category I or II historic properties on the Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity. The Deputy Commander's quarters (Building 29) at the Blue Grass Facility built c. is a Category III historic property because of its early association with the area and its well proportioned, simply detailed design, and because it remains largely intact. Buildings and the Administration building (Building 1) at the Lexington Facility are also Category III historic properties. The three are architecturally interesting and highly intact works of World War II era construction. Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page -? CONTENTS Executive Summary PREFACE 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 Scope 3 Methodology 4 2.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 12 Background 12 Pre-Military Land Use ,. 15 Lexington Facility World War II Construction 18 Post-War Construction 24 Blue Grass Facility Site Selection and World War II Construction 24 Post-War Construction 28 3. PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 30 Background 30 Category I Historic Properties 35 Category II Historic Properties ... 35 Category III Historic Properties 35 BIBLIOGRAPHY 39 Appendix A A-l Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page *f PREFACE This report presents the results of an historic properties survey of the Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity (including both the Lexington Facility and the Blue Grass Facility).

Prepared for the United States Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM), the report is intended to assist the Army in bringing the two installations into compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of and its amendments, and related federal laws and regulations. To this end, the report focuses on the iden- tification, evaluation, documentation, nomination, and preservation of historic properties at both the Lexington and Blue Grass facilities. Chapter 1 sets forth the survey's scope and methodology; Chapter 2 presents an architec- tural, historical, and technological overview of the installation and its prop- erties; and Chapter 3 identifies significant properties by Army category and sets forth preservation recommendations.

Illustrations and an annotated bibliography supplement the text. This report is part of a program initiated through a memorandum of agree- ment between the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of the Army. The program covers 74 DARCOM installations and has two components: 1) a survey of historic properties (districts, buildings, structures, and objects), and 2) the development of archeological overviews. Stanley H. Fried, Chief, Real Estate Branch of Headquarters DARCOM, directed the program for the Army, and Dr. Robert J. Kapsch, Chief of the Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page^ (HABS/HAER) directed the program for the National Park Service.

Sally Kress Tompkins was program manager, and Robie S. Lange was project manager for the historic properties survey. Technical assistance was pro- vided by Donald C. Jackson, Building Technology Incorporated acted as primary contractor to HABS/HAER for the historic properties survey. William A. Brenner was BTI's principal-in- charge and Dr. Larry D. Lankton was the chief technical consultant. Major subcontractors were the MacDonald and Mack Partnership and Melvyn Green and Associates. The authors of this report were Thomas Holtz, Barbara Hightower, and William Brenner. The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Gary Metcalf of the Facilities Engineer's Office and Basil Cole, Special Assistant to the Commanding Officer.

The complete HABS/HAER documentation for these installations will be included in the HABS/HAER collections at the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, under the designation HAER No. Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page (e Chapter 1

Introduction Scope

This report is based on an historic properties survey conducted in of accessible Army-owned properties located within the official boundaries of both the Lexington and Blue Grass facilities. The survey included the fol- lowing tasks: Completion of documentary research on the history of the installation and their properties. Completion of a field inventory of all accessible properties at the installations. Preparation of a combined architectural, historical, and technological overview for the installations. Evaluation of historic properties and development of recommendations for preservation of these properties. Also completed as a part of the historic properties survey of the installations, but not included in this report, are HABS/HAER Inventory cards for 22 indi- vidual properties.

These cards, which constitute HABS/HAER Documentation Level IV, will be provided to the Department of the Army. Archival copies of the cards, with their accompanying photographic negatives, will be trans- mitted to the HABS/HAER collections at the Library of Congress. The methodology used to complete these tasks is described in the following section of this report. Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page ? METHODOLOGY 1. Documentary Research The Lexington and Blue Grass facilities are both storage facilities that date from World War II. Documentary research focused on the physical development of the installations and their general history. Little infor- mation was found on the early history of either depot.

The Lexington Public Library, the Richmond/Madison Library, the University of Kentucky library, the Eastern Kentucky State University library, and the Lexington- Fayette County Historical Commission contained virtually no information of value. The Kentucky State Historic Preservation Office was contacted about possible historic properties at Lexington and Blue Grass facilities, but none were identified by this source.

Army records used for the field inventory included current Real Property Inventory (RPI) printouts that listed all officially recorded buildings and structures by facility classification and date of construction; the instal- lations' property records; base maps and photographs supplied by installa- tion personnel, and various reports and documents relating to master planning and environmental assessment. A complete listing of documen- tary material may be found in the bibliography. 2. Field Inventory The field inventory was conducted by William A. Brenner during a two- day period in April Basil Cole, Jr. coordinated the survey activities and Gary Metcalf served as survey escort. Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No.

Page %* Field inventory procedures were based on the HABS/HAER Guidelines for Inventories of Historic Buildings and Engineering and Industrial Structures. All areas and properties were visually surveyed except for a portion of the igloo storage area at the Blue Grass facility, which was closed because of special testing (see Appendix A). Building loca- tions and approximate dates of construction were noted from the installations' property records and field-verified. Field inventory forms were prepared for, and black and white 35 mm photographs taken of all buildings and structures through except basic utilitarian structures of no architectural, historical, or techno- logical interest.

When groups of similar {"prototypical") buildings were found, one field form was normally prepared to represent all buildings of that type. Field inventory forms were also completed for repre- 2 sentative post-1945 buildings and structures. Information collected on the field forms was later evaluated, condensed, and transferred to HABS/HAER Inventory cards. 3. Historic Overview A combined architectural, historical, and technological overview was prepared from information developed from the documentary research and the field inventory. It was written in two parts: 1) an introductory description of the installation, and 2) a history of the installation by periods of development, beginning with pre-military land uses. Maps and photographs were selected to supplement the text as appropriate.

Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page j The objectives of the overview were to 1) establish the periods of major construction at the installation, 2) identify important events and indi- viduals associated with specific historic properties, 3) describe patterns and locations of historic property types, and 4) analyze specific building and industrial technologies employed at the installations. 4. Property Evaluation and Preservation Measures Based on information developed in the historical overviews, properties were first evaluated for historical significance in accordance with the elegibility criteria for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.

These criteria require that eligible properties possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associa- 3 tion, and that they meet one or more of the following: A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in the nation's past. C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in pre-history or history. Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No.

Page ID Properties thus evaluated were further assessed for placement in one of five Army historic property categories as described in Army Regulation Category I Properties of major importance Category II Properties of importance Category III Properties of minor importance Category IV Properties of little or no importance Category V Properties detrimental to the significance of of adjacent historic properties Based on an extensive review of the architectural, historical, and tech- nological resources identified on DARCOM installations nationwide, four criteria were developed to help determine the appropriate categorization level for each Army property.

These criteria were used to assess the importance not only of properties of traditional historical interest, but of the vast number of standardized or prototypical buildings, structures, and production processes that were built and put into service during World War II, as well as of properties associated with many post-war technological achievements. The four criteria were often used in com- bination and are as follows; 1) Degree of importance as a work of architectural, engineering, or industrial design. This criterion took into account the qualitative factors by which design is normally judged: artistic merit, work- manship, appropriate use of materials, and functionality. Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No.

Page II 2) Degree of rarity as a remaining example of a once widely used architectural, engineering, or industrial design or process. This criterion was applied primarily to the many standardized or proto- typical DARCOM buildings, structures, or industrial processes. The more widespread or influential the design or process, the greater the importance of the remaining examples of the design or process was considered to be. This criterion was also used for non-military structures such as farmhouses and other once prevalent building types. 3) Degree of integrity or completeness.

This criterion compared the current condition, appearance, and function of a building, structure, architectural assemblage, or industrial process to its original or most historically important condition, appearance, and function. Those properties that were highly intact were generally considered of greater importance than those that were not. 4) Degree of association with an important person, program, or event. This criterion was used to examine the relationship of a property to a famous personage, wartime project, or similar factor that lent the property special importance. The majority of DARCOM properties were built just prior to or during World War II, and special attention was given to their evaluation.

Those that still remain do not often possess individual importance, but collec- tively they represent the remnants of a vast construction undertaking Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page \ 5L whose architectural, historical, and technological importance needed to be assessed before their numbers diminished further. This assessment centered on an extensive review of the military construction of the period, and its contribution to the history of World War II and the post-war Army landscape. Because technology has advanced so rapidly since the war, post-World War II properties were also given attention. These properties were evaluated in terms of the nation's more recent accomplishments in weaponry, rocketry, electronics, and related technological and scientific endeavors.

Thus the traditional definition of "historic" as a property 50 or more years old was not germane in the assessment of either World War II or post-war DARCOM buildings and structures; rather, the his- toric importance of all properties was evaluated as completely as pos- sible regardless of age. Property designations by category are expected to be useful for approxi- mately ten years, after which all categorizations should be reviewed and updated. Following this categorization procedure, Category I, II, and III historic properties were analyzed in terms of: * Current structural condition and state of repair. This information was taken from the field inventory forms and photogaphs, and was often supplemented by rechecking with facilities engineering personnel.

Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page (3 The nature of possible future adverse impacts to the property. This information was gathered from the installation's master planning documents and rechecked with facilities engineering personnel. Based on the above considerations, the general preservation recommenda- tions presented in Chapter 3 for Category 1, II, and III historic properties were developed. Special preservation recommendations were created for individual properties as circumstances required. 5. Report Review Prior to being completed in final form, this report was subjected to an in-house review by Building Technology Incorporated.

It was then sent in draft to the subject installation for comment and clearance and, with its associated historical materials, to HABS/HAER staff for technical review. When the installation cleared the report, additional draft copies were sent to DARCOM, the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer, and, when requested, to the archeological contractor performing parallel work at the installation. The report was revised based on all comments collected, then published in final form. NOTES 1. Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record, National Park Service, Guidelines for Inventories of Historic Buildings and Engineering and Industrial Structures (unpublished draft, 2.

Representative post-World War II buildings and structures were defined as properties that were: (a) "representative" by virtue of construction type, architectural type, function, or a combination of these, (b) of obvious Category I, II, or III historic importance, or (c) prominent on the installation by virtue of size, location, or other distinctive feature. 10 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page 3. National Park Service, How to Complete National Register Forms (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, January 4. Army Regulation Historic Preservation (Headquarters, U.S. Army: Washington, 15 April 11 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page \S Chapter 2

Historical Overview Background

The Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity, a part of the U.S. Army Depot Systems Command, receives, stores, issues, and disposes of ammunition and designated general supplies; and services radiological, electronic warfare, and general electronic equipment. The activity consists of two areas: the 780 acre Lexington Facility located 14 miles east of Lexington, Kentucky, and the Blue Grass Facility which occupies acres, six miles south of Richmond, Kentucky. (Illustrations 1 and 2) The two installations were merged in and redesignated in as a combined depot activity. The Lexington Signal Depot, as it was then called, was constructed in as a major Signal Corps depot for storage of ground radar, other classified radio equipment, and special vehicles required to transport radar.

Of the installation's present 115 structures, 49 were erected between and These consist primarily of storage, maintenance, and administration facilities. During the war, both the Lexington Supply School and the Army's first elec- tronics power school were housed on the Lexington depot. The installation's storage, maintenance, and housing facilities have been expanded since the war. Construction of the Blue Grass Facility in was a product of the War Department's expansion of ordnance supply depots during World War II. Construction focused on the erection of 802 ammunition storage igloos, ware- houses for the storage of combat equipment, and maintenance and admin- 12 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No.

Page \ \# E- oQ <D <D CO CO cc D r- CO *l cC ~ C , X <D CO *" S CO ^ -3 T3 ., C E-, CO CD CD o o.S v be c c c 0) cfi o CO W CO sO %3 t- m x: ?J eg is .5 o > CO 3 S G CO c o CO 3 13 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page O Illustration 2 Site map of the Blue Grass Facility. The ammunition storage area containing 902 igloos occupies most of the acres. Warehouses, housing, and administration facilities are located in the southwest corner of the site. (Source: Office of Facility Engineer, Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity) 14 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page v istration buildings. By war's end, 971 of the depot's current structures had been erected.

Operation of the depot was turned over to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company during the last two years of the war, but in October the federal government resumed control. Since then, ammunition demoli- tion and renovation facilities, warehouses, a guided missile maintenance facility, and an additional 100 storage igloos have been added to the installation.

Pre-Military Land Use

Before the Army acquired the Lexington and Blue Grass sites in the early both were used as farmland. Five pre-military structures remain, all at the Blue Grass facility. The first, a two-story, brick, Federal style house with frame additions (Building is said to have been built c. The main facade has five bays, with the entrance door in the center, covered by a recently added porch one bay in width. The house has two well-preserved Federal mantels on the first floor. (Illustrations 3 and 4) The second pre- military structure is a wood-frame, brick-veneer, bungalow style house (Building 20) located in the southwest area of the site.

The house was built during the or There are three abandoned and somewhat dete- riorated concrete structures a silo and two above-ground cisterns in the igloo storage area. The silo and one of the cisterns are located on the edge of area the other cistern is located on the edge of area "A." 15 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page,Q Illustration 3 Deputy Commander's quarters (Building Blue Grass Facility, view from the west (top) and from southeast (bottom). This two-story brick house located on the west side of the Blue Grass site was built e. and is largely intact. The outline of the original porch can be seen in the upper photograph. (Source: Field inventory photograph, William A. Brenner, Building Technology, Inc.) 16 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No.

Page Illustration 4 North fireplace, Deputy Commander's quarters (Building Blue Grass Facility. This fireplace is one of two original fireplaces on the first floor of the house. (Source: Field inventory photograph, William A. Brenner, Building Technology, Inc. 17 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page o2-J

Lexington Facility

World War II Construction At the beginning of World War II, increased production of signal equipment necessitated the expansion of facilities to store, pack, and ship equipment to the front. As a result, Signal Corps storage was increased from facilities at five Army general depots in to depots or depot space at 32 sites in the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Panama by mid-1942. Of the 32, only two, the Philadelphia and Lexington Signal Depots, were entirely controlled by the Signal Corps. The Lexington Signal Depot was designated a repository for ground radar, other classified radio equipment, and special vehicles required to transport 2 radar. Construction began in May based on the designs of Allied Engineers and Architects of Lexington.

Eleven wood-frame storage buildings clad with corrugated metal (Buildings 22, 23, and and a larger structure (Building composed of 20 identical units were built at the southern end of the site. Two parabaloid-shaped structures (Buildings 140 and located north of the storage buildings were used to test Signal Corps radar units and were built entirely of wood and other non-metallic materials. (Illustrations 5 and 6) Dedication ceremonies on May 29, marked completion of the second phase of construction, which had centered on administration, maintenance, and shop facilities. Of these, the administration building (Building 1), a Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page &- Illustration 5 Radar test facility (Building Lexington Facility, view from the east.

This structure, originally built entirely of wood and other non-metallic materials, is one of two similar buildings used to test Signal Corps radar during World War II. (Source: Field inventory photograph, William A. Brenner, Building Technology, Inc.) 19 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. ' Page . 3 CO >> >> Is <* c i ( cO Eg box: "O co 3 X! C- O >> CO r-. CO ha o =0 ,r. 5< - CO C < w o> O 5 CO QJ CO CO t- a C <31 f-, O CO '> bfl Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page *V three-story brick structure that faces the installation's main entrance, is the most architecturally distinctive. The building's impressive entrance bay consists of a four-story brick block with a three-story cut limestone frame that encloses a large glass block window set above revolving doors.

(Illustration 7) Most of the remaining buildings erected during this phase, including a motor pool (Building a heating plant (Building 7), a maintenance facility (Building and a locomotive repair shop (Building are of permanent brick construction. The depot's existing storage space was substantially increased during this second phase of development. Eight warehouses (Buildings 3-6 and totalling nearly square feet of space, were built in two parallel rows adjacent to the Louisville and Nashville Railroad on the depot's southern boundary. Each of the structural steel or heavy timber frame, brick-clad buildings has stepped gables and clerestories above flat roofs. Large sliding wood doors line the north and south sides of the warehouses.

(Illustration 8) During the war, Lexington also served a second important function as the site of the Army's first electronics power school. The school, which was initiated at Lexington in May and moved to Holabird Signal Depot in Baltimore in October offered training in the operation and maintenance of gasoline and diesel generators that powered important types of electronic equipment. Between December and November a second school, the Lexington Supply School, trained 24 mobile technical crews for inspection 3 and maintenance of ground and airborne signal equipment. 21 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page =^5 Illustration 7 Administration building (Building 1), Lexington Facility, view from the east.

The four-story, brick and limestone entrance block dominates the depot's headquarters, con- structed in (Source: Field inventory photograph, William A. Brenner, Building Technology, Inc.) 22 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page 3&> . r? o i- E-i cd u V- CD C CO CO CO C en o "" ^f i > 'X3 o 3 qj >i *-< a +-> =3 CO 1 \ x: o bo *-> 'o c 0 c c n +-> o cu o B 1 CJ C > a P>i C/3 03 O 1) bo x: >> O en o O .5 o cu *J c 'x .c w3 c JC CD cu OJ CD . T tj o > QJ cd x: c &t t f ^ 5 CD .1 1 CO CO -o bo s- 1 1 bo co QJ '-3 c d rS "3 i i 1 -C 'tn E- 3 CO 'S -i-> CD CQ CJ i- CD 3 C 0) O c b 1(0 CD i O O . QJ QJ CO C en QJ < O O CD 03 O CO sCO 1 bfl 0-5 , 1 - cn ^r ^ CO QJ en si s CO C O ._ cd ft-i -i-J en 3 23 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page o>~?

Post-War Construction After construction proceeded at a slower pace. A large steel frame industrial maintenance shop with concrete block walls (Building was added in and two very large steel-frame and brick warehouses (Buildings 220 and were built the following year. Family housing was expanded in the late with the construction of single and multi-family units (Buildings and In the and a number of minor facilities were added to the installation, including a recreation building (Building an electronic and communications security equipment maintenance facility (Building seven small warehouses (Buildings and and a dispensary (Building

Blue Grass Facility

Site Selection and World War II Construction Increased Congressional appropriations for defense brought about by the fall of France in led to the expansion of ammunition storage facilities across the United States. Initial plans called for placing depots in the four corners of the country to support forces repelling attacks from any direction. By early increased ammunition production and the implementation of the lend-lease program made the need for additional supply depots apparent. A site in southwestern West Virginia was chosen in the summer of because of the availability of reasonably rapid transportation to ports on the east coast, but was soon abandoned in favor of the Blue Grass site, which was less rugged, more economical to build on, and better suited for expansion.

4 24 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page * * The selection of the Blue Grass site was governed by the same basic criteria used in evaluating locations for most of the new depots. These considerations included: 1) a location at least two hundred miles from the coast as a defense against possible enemy bombardment 2) proximity to a major railroad line 3) remoteness from large centers of population 4) availability of large tracts of land to permit necessary safe distances between ammunition magazines 5) suitable soil and topography to reduce construction and operation costs. The Blue Grass site in central Kentucky satisfied all criteria. Situated on U.S.

Highway 25 and 421 about 30 miles south of Lexington, the gently rolling land was isolated from populated areas but readily accessible to a good labor pool. The Louisville and Nashville railroad passed just west of the site, which at the time was all relatively inexpensive farmland. Blue Grass was one of the later "B" type depots constructed by the Army in World War II. The first set of eight "A" depots, begun in were largely of permanent construction. The second set of eight "B" depots, begun in when construction materials had become more scarce, were of a type called "mobilization," designed to last five years. Virtually all construction 25 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No.

Page Scl at Blue Grass was, accordingly, of a "temporary" nature, except for its stor- age igloos, which at both the "A" and "B" depots were of the permanent type. Construction began in April on the basis of architectural and engineer- ing drawings by the firm of Hart Freeland Roberts of Nashville. Work initially concentrated on the erection of 802 ammunition storage igloos. These structures are standard reinforced concrete, vaulted, earth-covered igloos 60 or 80 feet deep. Approximately 80 air raid shelters with 12 inch reinforced concrete walls and roofs are interspersed throughout the igloos to provide shelter for personnel in the event of an explosion. Six months after construction began, the depot started receiving shipments of ammunition.

(Illustration 9) The installation's mission was soon expanded when the Ordnance Department implemented a policy for combat equipment storage at 12 of the new ammu- nition supply depots. Under this policy, the construction of additional ware- 7 houses was authorized for Blue Grass. Ten warehouses were built in at the southwest end of the installation. Six of these (Buildings and are heavy timber structures with tile exterior walls. The end walls are stepped at the roofline. The other four (Buildings and are similar in construction but lack the stepped gables. All ten are serviced by rail lines and roads.

Two prefabricated, steel-frame maintenance shops (Buildings 214 and with central clerestories were constructed adjacent to the warehouses in (Illusration 10) 26 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. PageJ-fc #^^:4i?v* Illustration 9 Igloo C100A, Blue Grass Facility. This reinforced concrete, earth-covered structure is typical of the 802 ammunition storage igloos at the Blue Grass Depot. (Source: Field inventory photograph, William A. Brenner, Building Technology, Inc.) Illustration 10 Maintenance Shops (Buildings 214 and Blue Grass Facility, view from south. These two maintenance shop buildings, built in are based on standardized plans used in Army depot construction during World War II. (Source: Field inventory photograph, William A.

Brenner, Building Technology, Inc.) 27 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page 3) The headquarters area, near the main entrance, was also developed in and contained administration, maintenance, and storage buildings. Administra- tive functions were housed in two wood-frame, two-story buildings (Buildings 2 and 3). Like administration buildings erected on other ammunition supply depots after the spring of when permanent construction materials were in critical supply, the Blue Grass buildings were of temporary "mobilization" o type construction.

Major maintenance and storage facilities include a one- story maintenance structure (Building 13) with a central two-story bay and six one-story, wood-frame storage buildings (Buildings 9, 11, and Post-War Construction Since war's end, construction at the Blue Grass Facility has been largely limited to the erection of additional storage facilities, a building used for guided missile maintenance (Building ammunition demolition and reno- vation facilities (Buildings and and a dispensary (Building 1), The largest of the post-war building projects occurred in when 100 igloos were built in the ammunition storage area. NOTES 1. George Raynor Thompson, Dixie R. Harris, Pauline M.

Oakes, and Dulany Terrett, The Signal Corps: The Test (December to July (Washington, Office of the Chief of Military History, pp. 2. Ibid, pp. and 3. George Raynor Thompson and Dixie R. Harris, The Signal Corps: The Outcome (Mid Through (Washington, Office of the Chief of Military History, p. 28 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page 4. Harry C. Thomson and Lida Mayo, The Ordnance Department: Procure- ment and Supply (Washington, Office of the Chief of Military History, I960), pp. 363 and 5. Constance McLaughlin Green and others, The Ordnance Department: Planning Munitions for War (Washington, Office of the Chief of Military History, p. 81; Thompson and Mayo, p. 6. Frances Lucile Cotman, "Historical Report, pp. 38, 40, Red River Army Depot Records Management Center. 7. Ibid, pp.

8. Ibid, p. 29 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page J?3 Chapter 3

Preservation Recommendations Background

Army Regulation requires that an historic preservation plan be developed as an integral part of each installation's planning and long range maintenance and development scheduling. The purpose of such a program is to: Preserve historic properties to reflect the Army's role in history and its continuing concern for the protection of the nation's heritage. Implement historic preservation projects as an integral part of the installation's maintenance and construction programs. Find adaptive uses for historic properties in order to maintain them as actively used facilities on the installation. Eliminate damage or destruction due to improper maintenance, repair, or use that may alter or destroy the significant elements of any property.

Enhance the most historically significant areas of the installation through appropriate landscaping and conservation. To meet these overall preservation objectives, the general preservation recom- mendations set forth below have been developed: Category I Historic Properties All Category I historic properties not currently listed on or nominated to the National Register of Historic Places are assumed to be eligible for nomination regardless of age. The following general preservation recommendations apply to these properties: 30 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page S^i a) Each Category I historic property should be treated as if it were on the National Register, whether listed or not. Properties not currently listed should be nominated.

Category I historic properties should not be altered or demolished. All work on such properties shall be performed in accordance with Sections 106 and of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended in and the regulations of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) as outlined in the "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR b) An individual preservation plan should be developed and put into effect for each Category I historic property. This plan should delineate the appropriate restoration or preservation program to be carried out for the property. It should include a maintenance and repair schedule and estimated initial and annual costs.

The preser- vation plan should be approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council in accordance with the above referenced ACHP regulation. Until the historic preservation plan is put into effect, Category I historic properties should be maintained in accordance with the recommended approaches of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Revised Guidelines 2 for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. 31 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No.

Page 3S c) Each Category I historic property should be documented in accor- dance with Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Documentation Level II, and the documentation submitted for inclusion in the HABS/HAER collections 3 in the Library of Congress. When no adequate architectural drawings exist for a Category I historic property, it should be documented in accordance with Documentation Level I of these standards. In cases where standard measured drawings are unable to record sig- nificant features of a property or technological process, interpretive drawings also should be prepared.

Category II Historic Properties All Category II historic properties not currently listed on or nominated to the National Register of Historic Places are assumed to be eligible for nomi- nation regardless of age. The following general preservation recommendations to these properties: a) Each Category II historic property should be treated as if it were on the National Register, whether listed or not. Properties not currently listed should be nominated. Category II historic prop- erties should not be altered or demolished.

All work on such prop- erties shall be performed in accordance with Sections 106 and of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended in and the regulations of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP) as outlined in the "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR 32 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page ^U b) An individual preservation plan should be developed and put into effect for each Category II historic property. This plan should delineate the appropriate preservation or rehabilitation program to be carried out for the property or for those parts of the property which contribute to its historical, architectural, or technological importance. It should include a maintenance and repair schedule and estimated initial and annual costs.

The preservation plan should be approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council in accordance with the above referenced ACHP regulations. Until the historic preservation plan is put into effect, Category II historic properties should be maintained in accordance with the recommended approaches in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Revised Guidelines for Rehabilitating 4 Historic Buildings and in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer.

c) Each Category II historic property should be documented in accor- dance with Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic American Engineering Record (HABS/HAER) Documentation Level II, and the documentation submitted for inclusion in the HABS/HAER collec- 5 tions in the Library of Congress. Category III Historic Properties The following preservation recommendations apply to Category III historic properties: 33 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No.

Page 31 ^fc a) Category III historic properties listed on or eligible for nomination to the National Register as part of a district or thematic group should be treated in accordance with Sections 106 and of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended in and the regulations of the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation as outlined in the "Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Such properties should not be demolished and their facades, or those parts of the property that contribute to the historical landscape, should be protected from major modifications. Preservation plans should be developed for groupings of Category III historic properties within a district or thematic group.

The scope of these plans should be limited to those parts of each property that contribute to the district or group's importance. Until such plans are put into effect, these properties should be maintained in accordance with the recommended approaches in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Revised Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. b) Category III historic properties not listed on or eligible for nomination to the National Register as part of a district or thematic group should receive routine maintenance. Such properties should not be demolished, and their facades, or those parts of the property that contribute to the historical landscape, should be protected from modification.

If the properties are unoccupied, they should, as a minimum, be maintained in stable condition and prevented from deteriorating. 34 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page 3$ HABS/HAER Documentation Level IV has been completed for all Category III historic properties, and no additional documentation is required as long as they are not endangered. Category III historic properties that are endangered for operational or other reasons should be documented in accordance with HABS/HAER Documentation Level III, and submitted for inclusion in the 7 HABS/HAER collections in the Library of Congress. Similar structures need only be documented once. CATEGORY

Historic Properties

There are no Category I historic properties at the Lexington Facility or the Blue Grass Facility. CATEGORY II HISTORIC PROPERTIES There are no Category II historic properties at the Lexington Facility or the Blue Grass Facility.

Category Iii Historic Properties

Deputy Commander's Quarters (Building Blue Grass Facility Background and significance. This house is undoubtedly one of the earliest structures in the vicinity of the Blue Grass facility. It is not architecturally distinguished, but it is well proportioned and simply detailed the house of a prosperous early farmer. Outlines of a former three-bay porch are still evident on the west (front) elevation. Chim- neys are located on the inside walls of the gable ends of the main house, and on the inside wall of the rear addition. There are several 35 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page 3? wood-frame additions to the rear of the house.

The building's simple massing, regular bay spacing, and attenuated profile suggest that it was built in the late Federal period The current (April occupant says the house dates to The two main first floor fire- place mantels are in the Federal style and are quite handsome and well preserved. (See Chapter 2, Blue Grass Facility, and Illustrations 3 and 4.) The house is a Category III historic property because of its early association with the area and its simple but well proportioned design, and because it remains largely intact, Condition and potential adverse impacts. The house is in good condition and receives routine maintenance and repair. There are no current plans to alter or demolish this property. Preservation recommendations.

Refer to the general preservation recom- mendations at the beginning of this chapter for Category III historic properties not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Administration Building (Building 1), Lexington Facility Background and significance. The Administration Building is the most architecturally distinctive building at the Lexington Facility. It is a well executed building with strong horizontal window elements, rounded brickwork corners on the ends of the main facade, and a massive verti- cal entryway of limestone and glass block. (See Chapter 2, Lexington Facility, and Illustration 7.) The building is well sited and exerts a 36 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page V6 commanding presence at the depot's entrance.

It is a Category III historic property because it is locally important as a work of archi- tectural design from the World War II era and is highly intact. * Condition and potential adverse impacts. The Administration Building is in good condition and receives routine maintenance and repair. There are no current plans to alter or demolish this property. * Preservation recommendations. Refer to the general preservation recom- mendations at the beginning of this chapter for Category III historic properties not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Buildings 140 and Lexington Facility Background and significance. Buildings 140 and 141 are identical, and appear to be unique in their design and construction.

Erected for testing Signal Corps radar units, these large parabloid-shaped buildings were built completely of wood and other non-metallic materials. They have since been covered with corrugated metal and converted to other uses, but their basic form is intact. The buildings are situated at the top of a low hill in the middle of the installation. (See Chapter 2, Lexington Facility, and Illustrations 5 and 6.) Both buildings are Category III historic properties because they are unique works of World War II era construction, are highly intact, and are strong visual landmarks. Condition and potential adverse impacts. Buildings 140 and 141 are in good condition and receive routine maintenance and repair. Both have been covered with corrugated metal (see above) but are otherwise largely intact.

There are no current plans to alter or demolish these properties. 37 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No, Page <-j I * Preservation recommendations. Refer to the general preservation recom- mendations at the beginning of this chapter for Category III historic properties not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. NOTES 1. Army Regulation Historic Preservation (Headquarters, U.S. Army: Washington, 15 April 2. National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Revised Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, (Washington, Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, 3.

National Park Service, "Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines," Federal Register, Part IV, 28 September pp. 4. National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior's Standards. 5. National Park Service, "Archeology and Historic Preservation." 6. National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior's Standards. 7. National Park Service, "Archeology and Historic Preservation." 38 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page Ha Preservation recommendations. Refer to the general preservation recom- mendations at the beginning of this chapter for Category III historic properties not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. NOTES 1. Army Regulation Historic Preservation (Headquarters, U.S. Army: Washington, 15 April 2.

National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Revised Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, (Washington, Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service, 3. National Park Service, "Archeology and Historic Preservation; Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines," Federal Register, Part IV, 28 September pp. 4. National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior's Standards. 5. National Park Service, "Archeology and Historic Preservation." 6. National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior's Standards. 7. National Park Service, "Archeology and Historic Preservation." 38 Lexington~Blue Grass Depot Activity HAER No. Page q$

Bibliography

Cotman, Frances Lucile. "Historical Report, Red River Ordnance Depot." Unpublished, RRAD Records Management Center. Most detailed account of the original construction program. Green, Constance McLaughlin and others. The Ordnance Department: Plan- ning Munitions for War. Washington, Office of the Chief of Military History, Standard study of munitions development by United States during World War II. Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity. Installation and Activity Brochure. DARCOM. December 31, Parrott, Ely and Hurt. Analysis of Existing Facilities/Environmental Assessment Report: Blue Grass Facility. Lexington, Kentucky, January Parrott, Ely and Hurt. Analysis of Existing Facilities/Environmental Assessment Report: Lexington Facility.

Lexington, Kentucky, January Thompson, George Raynor, Harris, Dixie R., Oakes, Pauline M., and Terrett, Dulaney. The Signal Corps: The Test (December to July Washington, Office of the Chief of Military History, Thompson, George Raynor and Harris, Dixie R. The Signal Corps: The Outcome (Mid Through Washington, Office of the Chief of Military History, Thomson, Harry C. and Mayo, Lida. The Ordnance Department: Procurement and Supply. Washington, Office of the Chief of Military History, 39 Lexington-Blue Grass Depot Activity DEPARTMENT OF TME^ YKY-U APPENDIX A HEADQUARTERS, LEXINGTON-BLUE GRAg$DE"POT ACTIVITY LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY May 20, REPLY TO

Attention of

Administration and Services Division Mr. William Brenner Building Technology, Inc. Spring Street Silver Springs, Maryland Dear Mr. Brenner: This letter is written in response to your phone conversation with Mr. Basil Cole May 18, concerning limited access to the Blue Grass facility during your Historical Survey in April The Drill and Transfer System (DATS) was in operation at the time of your visit. As a result, the northern part of the installation was restricted to authorized personnel only and was not available for survey. This included areas E, F, G, M and L. We do acknowledge, however, that you did survey the remainder of the installation. Sincerely, Billy R. Stone Chief, Administration and Services Division Copy Furnished: Basil Cole A-l