Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway

Source document Quoted word for word from HAER UTAH,23-DUG,1-. Not written, edited or summarised by this site.

During World War II, the installation's mission consisted of testing toxic agents, flame throwers, incendiary bombs, chemical spray systems, and biological warfare weapons. In addition, scientist also tested various chemical antidotes and several types of protective clothing. Historical Report Prepared by: David G. Buchanan and John P. Johnson, Prepared for Transmittal by: Robie S. Lange, HABS/HAER, Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page a

Executive Summary

Dugway Proving Ground is a major Army testing range located in an isolated section of west-central Utah, about 67 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. A part of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM), the installation is currently responsible for assessing the military value of chemical and bio- logical defense systems and flame, incendiary, and smoke obscurant systems. Dugway controls about acres of land. An additional acres adjacent to the installation are available for certain operations. The proving ground maintains 574 buildings, including community facilities, laboratories, and highly specialized test equipment. The earliest buildings date from World War II when the installation was established by the War Department as a chemical warfare range.

Permanent laboratory buildings were constructed primarily during the Korean War, while permanent housing and community buildings were erected during a major construction program following the war. There are no Category I historic properties at Dugway Proving Ground. The Lincoln Highway Bridge, a pre-military structure constructed about as part of the original national road from Nebraska to California, is a Category II historic property and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in The German Village, an incendiary bombing test site constructed during World War II, is a Category HI historic property. This site, which is comprised of two buildings, is associated with a significant World War II program to develop an effective incendiary bomb. Dugway Proving Grand HAER No.

UT-35 Page -3 CONTENTS Executive Summary PREFACE 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 Scope 3 Methodology 4 2. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 12 Background 12 Pre-Military Land Use 14 Construction and Site Development 15 3. PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS 29 Background 29 Category I Historic Properties 34 Category II Historic Properties 34 Category III Historic Properties 35 BIBLIOGRAPHY 37 Appendix A A-l Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page ^ PREFACE This report presents the results of an historic properties survey of Dugway Proving Ground.

Prepared for the United States Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command (DARCOM), the report is intended to assist the Army in bringing this installation 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 identification, evaluation, documentation, nomination, and preservation of historic properties at Dugway Proving Ground. Chapter 1 sets forth the survey's scope and methodology; Chapter 2 presents an architectural, historical, and technological overview of the installation and its properties; 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 (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. ^ Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page 5" 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 David G. Buchanan and John P. Johnson. The complete HABS/HAER documentation for this installation will be included in the HABS/HAER collections at the Library of Congress, Prints and Photo- graphs Division, under the designation HAER No. UT-35. x Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Chapter 1

Introduction Scope

This report is based on an historic properties survey conducted in of all Army-owned properties located within the official boundaries of Dugway Proving Ground. The survey included the following tasks: Completion of documentary research on the history of the installation and its properties, and general research on the history of chemical warfare in World War II. Completion of a field inventory of all properties at the installation. Preparation of a combined architectural, historical, and technological overview for the installation. 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 installation, but not included in this report, are HABS/HAER Inventory cards for 30 individual 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 transmitted 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. Jf Dugway Proving Grand ^ER No. UT-35 HAER Page ige ~> METHODOLOGY 1. Documentary Research Dugway Proving Ground was established during World War II as a chemical and biological warfare testing range.

Documentary research focused on the history of the installation and its role as an Army test facility. Research was conducted at the Library of the Utah State Historical Society in Salt Lake City and the Library of Congress in Washington, The Office of the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, and the Utah State Historic Preservation Office in Salt Lake City were both contacted about historic properties at the installation. These sources identified the Lincoln Highway Bridge as the only property listed on the National Register but also identified the German Village (Building as a potential historic property. No other properties were identified through these sources.

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 installa- tion's property record cards; and base maps and photographs supplied by installation personnel. A complete listing of this documentary material may be found in the bibliography. 2. Field Inventory The field inventory was conducted by David G. Buchanan and John P. Johnson during a three-day period in March, Victor Pratt, the x Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page S Environmental Officer at Dugway Proving Ground, served as the point of contact for the survey team and supplied installation maps and background information.

Tom Kincaid, of the Environmental and Life Science Division, escorted the survey team during its inventory of the installation. The Public Affairs Officer, Phil Hale, supplied brief histories of the proving ground; Reed Murray, Real Property Officer, provided access to the Real Property cards which supplied important information for the field inventory; and Elaine Nielsen of the Optical Data Branch of Dugway Proving Ground supplied the historic photographs that appear in this report. Jim Dykman, Cultural Resource Advisor with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, supplied information about potential historic properties at Dugway Proving Ground.

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 with the exception of the Carr Facility, a chemical ammunition storage area, which was not inventoried due to safety regulations (see Appendix A). Building locations and approximate dates of construction were noted from the installation's 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 technological 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 representative rf Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page Q 9 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. 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 installation. 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- tion, and that they meet one or more of the following: r Dugway Proving Grand HAJSR No. UT-35 Page \0 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.

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 HI 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 techno- logical resources identified on DARCOM installations nationwide, four criteria were developed to help determine the appropriate categorization Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page I\ 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.

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. Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page \ H 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 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. ^ Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page ' Z? 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. 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 I, 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 Xf Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page 'H 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. 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 *t Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page S*3 Chapter 2

Historical Overview Background

Dugway Proving Ground, located in west-central Utah about 67 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, is a materiel testing ground under the command of the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM). It was officially established on February 12, by the War Department as a chemical warfare range. Major John R. Burns was designated the first commanding officer of the installation under the Technical Division of the U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Service.! During World War II, the installation's mission consisted of testing toxic agents, flame throwers, chemical spray systems, and biological warfare weapons.^ In addition to developing toxic agents, scientists also tested various chemical antidotes and several types of protective clothing.

The most important experiments conducted during the war included the development of incendiary bombs and flame-throwing weapons. The first incendiary bombs were dropped experimentally on simulated Japanese and German-type buildings constructed at Dugway. Similar incendiary bombs later fell on Japan and Germany.3 Another important chemical warfare activity conducted at Dugway during the war was aerial spraying of toxic agents and surveillance of chemical agents and munitions under temperate zone conditions. Researchers dropped phosgene, cyanogen chloride, and hydrogen cyanide bombs ranging in size from 100 to pounds from different altitudes under different meteorological conditions & Dugway Proving Grand HAER No.

UT-35 Page \L# to estimate the quantity of munitions required to lay down a lethal concentration of gas upon a given area. Gas and smoke clouds were also tested under meteorological conditions, and firing tables were established for the M-2 4.2-inch chemical mortar and chemical rockets,^ Other World War II activities at Dugway included biological warfare and munitions experiments conducted as part of the SPHINX project. The SPHINX project, conducted during examined the potential of gas munitions against mock Japanese cave fortifications, which were constructed in the mountains at the Proving Ground.^ Immediately following World War II, the Army began to phase out the installation.

In January the Secretary of War established the Western Chemical Center to consolidate the operations of Dugway and the Deseret Chemical Depot (a storage depot established in and since a subinstallation of Tooele Army Depot). Dugway remained on inactive standby status from until it was reactivated in July with the outbreak of the Korean War.*> When reactivated, Dugway increased its programs for testing materiel and equipment for the Research and Development Command of the Army Chemical Corps, formerly the Chemical Warfare Service. The installation tested new weapon systems, including flame throwers, smoke generators, and flame bombs, and conducted experiments in micrometeorology. In June the Army transferred its Environmental Test Programs from Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland to Dugway.

During that same year the Chemical Corps also assigned Dugway its Program of Meteorological Research and Development. On July 1, Dugway Proving Ground became a permanent y Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page I**) Army installation under the jurisdiction of the Chief Chemical Officer. From until the Army Chemical Corps' CBR (Chemical-Biological Research) Weapons School was active at Dugway.? In during a major reorganization, the Army assigned Dugway Proving Ground to the Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM), with headquarters at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. Currently, Dugway Proving Ground assesses the military value of chemical and biological defense systems and flame, incendiary, and smoke obscurant systems.^

Pre-Military Land Use

Prior to purchase by the Army in the land in this area was primarily used for sheep and cattle raising and mining. Early topographic maps and geologic reports reveal evidence of several small mining operations along the north edge of Granite Peak feet), a large mountain in the center of the proving ground. At one time, lead, silver, and gold were mined in these granite veins.^ Livestock raising and mining operations ceased with military occupation of the land, and no buildings or structures associated with these activities remain within the proving ground boundaries. The Lincoln Highway Bridge, located at the present Ditto Technical Center, is an engineering structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Built about and known locally as Government Creek Bridge, it was part of the original Lincoln Highway, a national road from Lincoln, Nebraska to Sacramento, California. The road, crossing the west edge of the salt flats, M Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page [% was called the Goodyear Cut-Off, named for the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, a major supporter of the Lincoln Highway in Utah. Attempts to make this road the main route to the west coast were not successful.

Local ranchers and miners used the bridge after the Lincoln Highway Association abandoned it in the early 1920's.lu This crude structure of hewn-log decking and circular log beams, resting on rock and concrete abutments added in the by local CCC workers, was listed on the National Register in May and is the only remnant in this area of the Lincoln Highway. (Illustration 1)

Construction and Site Development

At the beginning of World War II the War Department expanded its capacity for chemical warfare defense. Because the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland offered little room for further development or field testing, the Army looked for new sites for chemical warfare testing. From a study made by the Federal Grazing Service, the Army determined that the desert area in western Utah offered the advantages of climate, altitude, and expansion space not available at other locations. In early it selected a large tract of arid land about 85 miles southwest of Salt Lake City as the site for a new chemical warfare testing ground. The site lay partly in the Great Salt Lake Desert and was bounded by the Onaqui Mountains on the northeast and the Dugway Mountain Range on the southeast.

The Dugway site was ideally suited for the classified and toxic tests the Army planned to conduct.11 In February President Roosevelt ordered the transferral of acres from the public domain to the Chemical Warfare Service, and Dugway Proving Ground was established. The name for the new installation was x Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page IS Illustration 1: Lincoln Highway Bridge (c. located in the Ditto Area of Dugway Proving Ground (Source: Field Inventory Photograph, David G. Buchanan, Building Tech- nology, Inc.). J* Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page derived from the serpentine trenches or "dugways" that the early emigrants constructed to transport their wagons over the mountain passes. Today, Dugway controls about acres.

An additional acres adjacent to the installation are available for certain operations, giving Dugway a total area which is larger than the state of Rhode Island.12 (illustration 2) Preliminary headquarters were first established in March at an existing CCC camp at Simpson Springs, Utah. By April, roads ran to the new site, and temporary buildings stood at Government Well near the Lincoln Highway Bridge. This area, named Dog Area (now Ditto Technical Center), served as the main troop housing and administrative area of Dugway Proving Ground during World War II.

Many of its one and two story wood cantonment and supply buildings remain standing today.13 (Illustrations 3 and 4) Laboratories for chemical, physical, and photographic experiments were constructed at Dog Area by August A permanent airfield built in February replaced an earlier dirt airstrip. In a large wood framed aircraft hangar (Building and a 54 foot wood control tower were built. The tower was replaced by the present 80 foot concrete control tower (Building in Plans were also completed in for a toxic gas yard, known as Charlie Area (now Carr Facility). Originally planned as a yard 180 feet by 400 feet, this area was expanded by to a chemical storage area of about 100 acres.

14 xt Dugway rruvj.ua HAER No, UT-35 Page 1 o 05 P-4 hi o Z-, =s o <n Ch ^ ca s S o c o C 03 c i i i H cd > 4-J o W S-. c CU 1 1 >> =3 5 O ho -i 13 O Q to . 0) > CP o S-j c -< 1 CM >> w CO 5 0) bo 3 Q 1 1 <M i J* Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page <M O cc %v -J 03 .-1 ^ ^ Q ho f- s ~' .- O j= *= I I * s I E- 3 CC cd O +-> > w CO o c 1 1 'I I t- i: -* & o .2 o ? bAQ O X) .S 5 CO c o c o Oi cd |6 ST *- O bfi ho-:? bo ho 2 O a o QQ CO X Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page A 3 8f ax; 5 2 t: o c O bD c *= . > ^ ^ o o s-< . o en ~ ^ >> tj CO cC rS 5 M c -a c O QJ W a^ <*- Q 8*2 t! c O a. w >> he co ^ -a h QES c o +-> a to 3 a r Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page BU.

In March construction began on twelve two-family Japanese-type houses, six German-type apartment buildings, and a concrete observation bunker eapable of withstanding the impact of a 100-pound bomb. These buildings permitted testing of experimental incendiary bombs on typical Japanese or German buildings. The wood and brick used simulated German and Japanese construction, and even the furnishings, including "tatami" (Japanese straw floor mats) and replicas of German furniture, were chosen to provide a realistic test site. After extensive incendiary tests were conducted on these structures from May 17, until September 1, the Army Air Force formed plans for the bombing of Japan with small incendiary bombs (the AN-M-69) that used gasoline jelly as a fuel.

This test area is now known as German Village; one two-story brick German apartment building (Building and the observation bunker (Building still remain.I5 (Illustrations After June a separate research station constructed at the north edge of Granite Peak provided a center for biological warfare activities. The Granite Peak Installation (GPI-2) was located 30 miles west of Dog Area. Because of its isolation, the research station required its own utilities, living quarters, laboratories, and medical facilities. Only two buildings remain today from the GPI-2 research station: a pump house (Building and an underground igloo-storage building (Building (Illustration 8) Toward the end of World War II, activity at Dugway Proving Ground increased.

A major Operations Headquarters building (Building and a chemical laboratory building (Building were constructed in the Dog Area between and Both were built to accommodate expanded activities. The Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page S, S 5; <w c > 1- TJ QI bo Q>< VQ c > oS <a x: S o g OH IS CD CO <-* hfl 3 03 =- 'M Q =5 Q 4.. -c S3 a3 < O ** CO ? to O 0) Cfi u CO co Is o o di o >> 3 s- CQ O in ^r Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page TbsiQ Illustration 6: The only remaining test building (Building in the World War II Incendiary Test Area of Dugway Proving Ground (Source: Field Inventory Photograph, David G. Buchanan, Building Technology, Inc.). Dugway Proving Grand HAER No.

UT-35 Page Illustration 7: Concrete Observation Bunker (Building in the World War II Incendiary Test Area of Dugway Proving Ground (Source: Field Inventory Photograph, David G. Buchanan, Building Technology, Inc.). Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page Q$L o o CO u CO o a 4> <H CO bjo o if 3 3= o * &fi P ^ .5 s- . hD > S-o o o *-> c o cu S g +- O w ~ C * O c P w g> | 3 ^ Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page $P{ concrete block buildings, though now altered, still serve their original functions. In March the size of the installation was further increased when part of the Wendover Bombing Range, adjacent to the proving ground on the west, was transferred to Dugway in a five-year agreement that has been continually renewed.

Immediately following World War II, activity at Dugway ceased and no buildings were constructed until the installation was reactivated in July for the Korean War. In a temporary mobile home park and temporary community facilities were constructed at Fox Area (now Fries Park Area). All of these structures, however, have been dismantled. Eight single-story, U-shaped steel-frame warehouses were also built in this area and still remain. In construction of a new administration area began at Dugway to replace the outdated facilities in Dog Area. The new facilities, built in Easy Area (now known as English Village), included an administrative headquarters-building, permanent barracks buildings, a hospital, a fire station, and maintenance facilities.

Easy Area, ten miles east of Dog Area, was ready for occupation by December Two major laboratory areas, Able and Baker Areas (now Avery and Baker), also constructed in greatly expanded Dugway's chemical and biological warfare research facilities.1^ A Wherry housing project begun in provided permanent living quarters for both military and civilian personnel. Additional Wherry housing units were completed in and A Capehart housing project was x Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page 3T> completed in Other community facilities built during the included a gymnasium (Building a chapel (Building and a theater (Building Since construction at Dugway Proving Ground has been limited.

New buildings at Dog Area include a chemistry laboratory (Building completed in and a photo laboratory (Building completed in Additional housing for non-commissioned officers, constructed in and several other community facilities have since been built in Easy (English Village) Area. NOTES 1. Leonard J. Arrington and Thomas G. Alexander, "Sentinels on the Desert: The Dugway Proving Ground and Deseret Chemical Depot Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter pp. 2. Ibid, pp. See also Leo P. Brophy, Wyndham D. Miles, and Rexmond C. Cochrane, The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field (Washington, DTcTi U.S. Army, pp. 3. William A. Noyes, Chemistry: A History of the Chemistry Components of the National Defense Research Committee, (Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 4.

Brophy, The Chemical Warfare Services: From Laboratory to Field, p. 39. 5. Ibid, p. 40. 6. Arrington, "Sentinels on the Desert," pp. 7. Arrington, "Sentinels on the Desert," p. 38; U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, "Dugway Proving Ground" (Dugway, UT: DARCOM Installation and Activity Brochure, pp. 8. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, "Dugway Proving Ground," p. 6. 9. Ronald L. Ives, "The Granite Peak Area, Utah", Rocks and Minerals, June pp. Charles A. Mardirosian, Mining Districts and Mineral Deposits of Utah (Salt Lake City: University of Utah State Geological Survey, 1966)i Historical Records Survey, Inventory of County Archives of Utah, No.

23, Tooele County, Dugway Mining District, County Recorder Mining Records" (Ogden, UT: Historical Records Survey, & Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page 31 10. National Register of Historic Places, Inventory Nomination Form, "Lincoln Highway Bridge," May 21, Lincoln Highway Association, The Lincoln Highway; The Story of a Crusade That Made Transportation History (New York: Dodd, Mead, p. 11. Arrington, "Sentinels on the Desert," pp. 12. Ibid, p. 34. 13. Ibid, pp. 14. Ibid, p, 36. 15. Ibid, pp. Noyes, Chemistry, pp. 16. Arrington, "Sentinels on the Desert," pp. Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page 3iL~ 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: & Dugway t-roving * .< HAER No. UT-35 Page 33 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 for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer. Dugway Proving Grand HAER No.

UT-35 Page 3^ 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 apply 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 X Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page 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.

cj 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- tions in the Library of Congress. Category HI Historic Properties The following preservation recommendations apply to Category III historic properties: Dugway Proving Grand HAER No.

UT-35 Page 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 HI 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 nomina- tion 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. Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page ,37 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 HI 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 Dugway Proving Ground at this time. CATEGORY II HISTORIC PROPERTIES Lincoln Highway Bridge Background and significance. The Lincoln Highway Bridge is the only pre-military structure at Dugway Proving Ground. It was constructed about as a road bridge for the Lincoln Highway, a national road from Lincoln, Nebraska, to Sacramento, California, but was abandoned by the Lincoln Highway Association in the early because the highway was not successful in becoming the main route to the West Coast. The bridge was used by local ranchers and miners during the and repaired by local CCC workers in the It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in The hewn-log >r Dugway Proving Grand HAER No.

UT-35 Page 3>& bridge is a Category II historic property because of its direct associa- tion with the Lincoln Highway, one of the early national roads. (See Chapter 2, Pre-Military Land Use, and Illustration 1.) Condition and potential adverse impacts. The Lincoln Highway Bridge is maintained by the Army as an historic property, and there are no current plans to alter or demolish this structure. Preservation options. Refer to the general preservation recommendations at the beginning of this chapter for Category II historic properties listed on the National Register.

Category Iii Historic Properties

German Village Background and significance. The German apartment building (Building and observation bunker (Building at German Village are the only remaining structures from an experimental area built during World War II for testing incendiary bombs. Originally six "German-type" apartment houses and twelve "Japanese-type" two-family houses were built in the area. To provide a realistic test environment, the buildings were carefully constructed to replicate German and Japanese building types. Construction on the site began in March and extensive incendiary tests were conducted on the structures from May 17, until September 1, As a result of these tests, incendiary bombs were later used by the Army Air Force in bombing raids of Japan and x Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page ^ Germany.

The remaining apartment building is an example of the "German-type" buildings constructed at the test site. The observation bunker, which was designed to withstand the effects of a 100-pound bomb, was constructed to shelter personnel working at the test site. Both structures are Category III historic, properties because of their association with a unique World War II program to develop an effective incendiary bomb. (See Chapter 2, Construction and Site Development, and Illustrations 5, 6 and 7.) * Condition and potential adverse impacts. Both structures are in good condition and remain essentially as they were when built. The only modification is the addition of a wood tower to the German apartment building, added in for subsequent testing purposes.

There are no current plans to alter or demolish these properties. Preservation options. Refer to the general preservation recommendations at the beginning of this chapter for Category III historic properties. 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. x Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page Cf& 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." x Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Page i~f \

Bibliography

Armed Forces Chemical Association. The Chemical Warfare Service in World War H. New York: Reinhold, Activities at Dugway Proving Ground in World War II. Arrington, Leonard J. and Alexander, Thomas G. "Sentinels on the Desert: The Dugway Proving Ground and Deseret Chemical Depot Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter Only historical essay written about Dugway and Deseret (now a sub- installation of Tooele Army Depot). Brophy, Leo P., Niles, Wyndham P., and Cochrane, Rexmond C. The Chemical Warfare Service: From Laboratory to Field. Washington, U.S. Army, One of a three-part official series published by the U.S. Army Chief of Military History. Brophy, Leo P., Niles, Wyndham P., and Cochrane, Rexmond C. The Chemical Warfare Service: Organizing for War. Washington, U.S.

Army, Reference to Granite Peak Biological Warfare Installation. Deseret Sampler. "Special 40-year Anniversary Issue." March 12, Installation newspaper. Historical Records Survey. Inventory of County Archives of Utah, No. 23, Tooele County, Ogden, UT: Historical Records Survey, List of official records by county prior to Ives, Ronald L. "The Granite Peak Area, Utah." Rocks and Minerals (June Geological report. Lincoln Highway Association. The Lincoln Highway: The Story of a Crusade That Made Transportation History. New York: Dodd, Mead, Association history and development of highway through Utah. Mardirosian, Charles A. Mining Districts and Mineral Deposits of Utah. Salt Lake City: University of Utah State Geological Survey, Statewide geological survey.

National Register of Historic Places. Inventory Nomination Form. "Lincoln Highway Bridge." May 21, Only Dugway site listed on National Register. Noyes, William A., Jr. Chemistry: A History of the Chemistry Components of the National Defense Research Committee, Boston: Little, Brown, Discussion of chemical testing at German and Japanese villages. U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command. "Dugway Proving Ground." Dugway, UT: DARCOM Installation and Activity Brochure, DARCOM brochure. Dugway Proving Grand HAER No. UT-35 Pase APPENDIX A ^^L April 22, Commanding General Dugway Proving Ground Dugway, Utah Attention: Victor Pratt, Plans and Operations Dear Sir: On March 17, while touring the installation with Tom Kincaid, we were denied access to the Carr Facility because we did not have gas masks.

Would you kindly send a simple letter, explaining the reason for the denial, to William Brenner, Project Director, at the above address. Sincerely, BUILDING TECHNOLOGY, INC. John P. Johnson David G. Buchanan Dugway Proving Grand DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY %$ *% ~* 5 U. 5. ARMY DUGWAY PROVING GROUND OUGWAY, UTAH ' April 25, REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: Plans & Operations Directorate BUILDING TECHNOLOGY INC ATTN: William Brenner, Project Director Spring Street Silver Spring, MD Dear Mr. Brenner: In response to the letter of April 22, from your Mr. Johnson on the denial of access to Carr Facility, the following is provided: "Safety regulations of Dugway Proving Ground require that any person travelling west of* the Ditto area (including Carr Facility) carry gas masks.

This is to provide'protection should there "be an accident or incident which resulted in the inadvertant release of chemical agent from stored munitions or from lahoratory opera- tions involving chemical agents. The masks are available to anyone requesting them at the Change House, which is near the Chemical Laboratory in Ditto." Mr. Kincaid is a relatively new employee and I suspect that he was not aware of the requirement to provide masks to all visitors as noted above. Please accept our apology for any inconvenience this slip up caused your staff. Pratt, PE Plans & Operations Directorate