Final Inventory And Evaluation Of Cold War Era Historical .
Final Inventory and Evaluation ofCold War Era Historical ResourcesMoffett FederalAirfieldMoffett Field, CaliforniaNASA Crows LandingFlight FacilityCrows Landing, CaliforniaPrepared byAlexandraC. ColeMarch 1999- - - ------Science Appl/cations InternationalCorporation - . An Employee-OwnedCompany816 State Street, Suite 500 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
TABLE OF CONTENTSACRONYMS . iiiEXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 11.02.03.0INTRODUCTION . 21.1PURPOSE . 21.2LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS . 21.2.1 Section 106 Requirements . 21.2.2 Cold War Building and Structure Requirements .31.3LOCATION OF PROJECT AREA . .4BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND METHODS . 92.1BACKGROUND RESEARCH . 92.2METHODS . 92.2.1 Research Objectives . 92.2.2 Archival Research . 92.2.3 Field Inventory . 102.2.4 National Register Criteria . 10HISTORIC CONTEXT . .133.1EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY . 133.2WORLD WAR II ERA . 143.2COLD3.2.13.2.23.2.3.WAR ERA (1946-1989). 15General History of the Cold War . 15History of the Navy in the Cold War . 17History of Moffett Field in the Cold War Era (1946-1989) .194.0CONCLUSIONS5.0SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS . 416.0. 365.1SUMMARY . 445.2MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS . 44REFERENCES . 45ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 51APPENDIX--DRP 523 Forms for Moffett Federal Airfield andNASA Crows Landing Flight Facility
LIST OF FIGURES1-11-21-31-43-13-23-3Project Location Moffett Federal Airfield .5Moffett Federal Airfield Buildings and Structures .6Project Location NASA Crows Landing Flight Facility .7NASA Crows Landing Flight Facility Buildings and Structures .8P-3 Orion Antisubmarine Warfare System .23P-3 Orion from VP-91 Making a Pass over Surfaced Submarine .29P-3 Orion Aircraft Dropping a Sonobuoy .30LIST OFT ABLES4-14-24-3Cold War Era Buildings at Moffett Federal Airfield .37Cold War Era Buildings at NASA Crows Landing Flight Facility .40Buildings at Moffett Field Associated with the Cold War Era41P-3 Orion Nlission .,.ii
SPATACANTACCOWST-advanced intermediate maintenance depotanti-submarine warfareadvanced underwater weaponCalifornia Air National GuardDirectional Frequency and RangingDirection of recorded soundDepartment of Defenseelectronic countermeasureelectronic surveillance measureGreenland, Iceland, United Kingdomheavier-than-airIdentification Friend or Foelighter-than-airmagnetic anomaly detectorMoffett Federal AirfieldNaval Air StationNational Aeronautical and Space AdministrationNaval Air Training CenterNorth Atlantic Treaty OrganizationNaval Air Transport ServiceNational Historic Preservation ActNational Register of Historic PlacesState Historic Preservation OfficeScience Applications International Corporationsubmarine-launched ballistic missilesound surveillance systemSOSUS probability areatactical air navigationtactical coordinatorweapons systems trainingCover:Shadowof P-3 Orion Aircraft over a VictorClass Soviet Submarine. U.S. Navy Photographiii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA cultural resources survey was conducted at Moffett Federal Airfield (MFA), Moffett Field,California and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Crows Landing FlightFacility (formerly Naval Auxiliary Landing Field), Crows Landing, California, for NASA atMoffett Field. The purpose of the survey was to identify and evaluate all cultural resourceswithin the MFA and NASA Crows Landing boundaries constructed between 1945 and 1989 fortheir Cold War significance. The survey consisted of an analysis of MFA and NASA CrowsLanding's role in the Cold War, an architectural inventory of all buildings constructed duringthat period, and an evaluation of them to determine if they met the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP) criteria of exceptional significance used when assessing resources thatare less than 50 years old (36 CFR 60.4, Criterion G).Of the 148 buildings and structures formally evaluated, none were considered eligible forlisting on the NRHP. Twenty of these buildings were used specifically to support the P-3 Orionanti-submarine,,.warfare (ASW) mission at MFA. Although this mission was considered ofexceptionalnational significance within the Cold War context, the buildings themselves do notexhibit special architecturalor engineeringfeaturesthat wouldgive them exceptionalsignificance as representatives of the Cold War P-3 mission. The remaining 128 buildings andstructures are considered support buildings found at any installation and therefore are notconsideredsignificant. After the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) hasconcurred with the results of the survey, the Section 106 process is complete.1
1.0 INTRODUCTIONThis report presents the background, goals, methods and results of an architectural survey ofCold War resources conducted at MFA and NASA Crows Landing Flight Facility. In support ofthis survey, NASA contracted with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) toprepare a cultural resources investigationto fulfill the identificationrequirementsunderSection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The architectural surveywas conducted from February to April 1998, and consisted of the examination and evaluationof 148 Cold War-era (1946-1989) potentially significant historical resources within the MFA andNASA Crows Landing boundaries.1.1PURPOSEThe primary goal of this survey was to determine the significance of Cold War-era facilities atMFA and NASA Crows Landing to assess potential effects of the long-term goals and objectivesof NASA. These goals and objectives include the possible future renovation and/ or demolitionof a selected number of the surveyed buildings. Recommendations regarding NRHP eligibilityhave been developed to allow NASA to submit a formal declaration of significance to the SHPOfor review and concurrence to fulfill NASA's requirements under Section 106 of the NHPA.1.2LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTSNumerous laws and regulations require federal agencies to consider the effects of a proposedproject on cultural resources. These laws and regulations stipulate a process for compliance,define the responsibilities of the federal agency proposing the action, and prescribe therelationshipsamong other involved agencies (e.g., State Historic Preservation Office, theAdvisory Council on Historic Preservation).1.2.1Section 106 RequirementsThe primary law governing the treatment of cultural resources is the NHP A, which requires afederal agency to consider potential impacts on historic properties resulting from any proposedundertaking.For purposes of Section 106, "historic properties" include properties listed in, oreligible for listing in, the NRHP (36 CFR 800.2 [e]). An "effect" from a federal "undertaking"would be an action that would alter characteristics of the property that may qualify theproperty for inclusion in the National Register. An adverse effect is one that would diminish2
the integrity of the property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, orassociation (36 CFR 800.9 [a] and [bl). Adverse effects include the following:1.Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the property;2.Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's settingwhen that character contributesto the property'squalification for the NationalRegister;3.Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character withthe property or alter its setting;4.Neglect of a property resulting in its deterioration or destruction; and5.Transfer, lease or sale of the property (36 CFR 800 [b]).Compliance with requirements of Section 106 pursuant to the demolition/ remodel of MF A andNASA Flight Facility, Crows Landing Cold War-era facilities for new use involves three basicsteps: (1) identificationimplementationof significantculturalresourcesthat could be affected by theof the Proposed Action or its alternatives, (2) assessment of the impacts oreffects of these actions, and (3) development and implementation of measures to eliminate orreduce impacts to a non-adverse level.Only historic properties determinedto be significant under cultural resource legislation aresubject to protection or consideration by a federal agency. Significance criteria and integritydefinitions used in this report are provided in Section 2.0.NationalPark Service guidelinesregardingthe definitionof buildings(as opposedtostructures) have been used for this study. Buildings are created to shelter human activity (e.g.,administrationbuildings, hangars, garages); structures are designed for purposes other thanhuman shelter (e.g., power plants, piers, swimming pools).Within this report, the term"facility" is used to refer to both "building" and" structure."1.2.2,.Cold War Building and Structure RequirementsIn the Defense AppropriationsAct of 1991, Congress required the Department of Defense(DoD), through its Legacy Resource Management Program, to begin reviewing Cold War-era3
cultural resources. By 1993, as part of the Cold War History Project, DoD, in coordination withother federal agencies and departments, was required to develop a project to inventory andconserve resources associated with the Cold War.1.3LOCATION OF PROJECT AREAMoffett Federal Airfield is located in Santa Clara County on the west side of San Francisco Bay.It is approximately 35 miles south of San Francisco and 10 miles north of San Jose.It isbounded on the west by the city of Mountain View, to the south by the City of Sunnyvale, tothe north by the NASA Ames Research Center, and to the east by San Francisco Bay (seeFigures 1-1 and 1-2).NASA Crows Landing Flight Facility is located in Stanislaus County, in the northwestern partof the San Joaquin Valley between the towns of Patterson and Crows Landing.approximately80 miles southeast of San Francisco.The approximatelyIt is1,500-acre parcelcontains 24 buildings; 1,120 of these acres are leased for field and orchard crops (see Figures 1-3and 1-4).4
.,,.,,· .'·"!'). ·\ 4.,. ,,.,'6:. .;·· \ ·· r\·· ., .Scale05IOMilesFigure 1-1. Project Location Moffett Federal Airfield5
LEGENDDHistoric DistrictScale10002000FeetCourtesy: NASA Ames Research Center0Figure 1-2. Moffett Federal AirfieldBuildings and Structures6
'/(
HALr CROWS DINGNASA CROWSLANDINGtrScale0,.25005000FeetCourtesy: Tetra Tech EM Inc.Figure 1-3. Project Location, NASA Crows Landing Flight Facility77500
);'I")"O(!I0a:3:00(I):::!!:Cl AzimuthAntenna0 143001671:!lI/Davis RoadStorage Shed0D ScaleE--30F--3Feet 3001----J151!'.:I:El0136h']40LI,of"I ScaleIIDFigure 1-4. NASA Crows Landing Flight Facility Buildings and Structures500Feet1000Courtesy NASA-Ames Research Center
2.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND METHODS2.1BACKGROUND RESEARCHIn 1991 a survey of historic buildings dating from 1930 to 1946 was conducted at MFA andNASA Crows Landing by Bonnie Bamburg (Urban Programmers 1991). Forty-three buildingsdating from this period were found eligible for the NRHP as the Shenandoah Plaza district; in1994 the Shenandoah Plaza National Historic District was listed on the NRHP (see Figure 1-2for the boundariesboundaryof the district). Twenty-five of these NRHP buildings are within theof MFA. An additional 21 buildings dating to the Cold War era are within theHistoric District boundaries, but were considered non-contributingbecause they were less than50 years old. To date there has been no Cold War-era architectural survey nor have Cold War era contexts been developed for MFA or NASA Crows Landing.2.2METHODS2.2.1Research ObjectivesThe prime objective of this survey was to determine the significance of Cold War-era facilitiesat MFA and NASA Crows Landing. The types of resources examined included hangars, flightcontrol buildings, classrooms, parachute buildings, warehouses, vehicle maintenance shops,fuel storage tanks, munitions storage, line maintenance shelters, sentry houses, gas stations,administrativeoffices, dormitories, exchange and recreation buildings, engine repair shops,water supply buildings, a wharf, and hazardous storage buildings.2.2.2Archival ResearchArchival research on these facilities was performed to establish contexts for Cold War-eraactivities at MFA and NASA Crows Landing within which to analyze the significance of thehistoric resources for NRHP eligibility. Research was performed at the Public Affairs archivalrecords vault in Building 17, at the Moffett Field Historical Society in Hangar 1, and the civilengineeringfiles in Building 683. Additionallyinterviewswere conductedwith W. CarlHonaker, NASA Moffett Liaison Office; James Anderson, Defense Fuel Office; Rocci Caringello,Facilities Manager, Naval Air Reserve Santa Clara; Kathleen O'Connor, Archivist, NationalArchivesand Records Administration,Commander,Pacific Region, San Bruno; and John Pedersen,United States Navy, for information on the various Cold War-era missions at9
MFA and NASA Crows Landing. Further research was undertakenat the National Archivesand Records Administration, Pacific Region, San Bruno, California.The Real Property Inventoryforms for MFA and NASA Crows Landing facilities wereexamined for information on date of construction, square footage, previous and present use,and alterations.2.2.3Field InventoryField investigation and research for the survey was conducted between February and April1998 by SAIC historian/ architectural historian Alexandra C. Cole. On-site analysis of buildingsincludedfor each resourcean architecturaldescription,an investigationmaterials, alterations, present use, assessment of integrity, and photographyof constructionof each facility.Facilities were then evaluated for significance, based on NRHP criteria listed in section 2.2.4following.2.2.4rNational Register CriteriaThe NRHP criteria, found in 36 CFR 60.4 of the National Historic Preservation Act, are asfollows:"The quality of significance is present in districts, sites, buildings, structuresandobjects that:A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contributionto thebroad patterns of history; orB. Are associated with the lives of people significant in the past; orC. Embodythe distinctiveconstruction;representcharacteristicsof a type, period,or methodofthe work of a master; possess high artistic value; orrepresent a significant and distinguishableentity whose componentsmay lackindividual distinction; orD. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory orhistory."10
To be listed in or considered eligible for the NRHP, a cultural resource must meet at least one ofthe above criteria and must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,workmanshipfeeling, and association. Integrity is defined as the authenticity of a property'shistoric identity, as evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during theproperty'shistoric or prehistoricoccupationor use.If a resource retains the physicalcharacteristics it possessed in the past, it has the capacity to convey information about a cultureor people, historical patterns, or architectural or engineering design or technology.Sites or structures that may not be considered individuallysignificant may be consideredeligible for listing on the NRHP as a district. According to the NRHP, a district possesses asignificantconcentration,linkage, or continuityof sites, buildings,structures,or objectshistorically or aesthetically united by plan or physical development.Generally cultural resources must be at least 50 years old to be evaluated for NRHP eligibility.However, according to NRHP criterion G if a resource is of exceptionalsignificance it may beconsideredfor the NRHP (36 CFR 60.4, Criterion G).Additionalguidance for evaluatingexceptional significance for facilities that have achieved significance within the last 50 years isfound in the National Park Service National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelinesfor Evaluating andNominating PropertiesThat Have Achieved SignificanceWithin the Last Fifty Years.In keeping with the above mandate,the United States Navy issued a Cultural ResourcesProgram Note to guide cultural resource managers in determiningWar-era resources (U.S. Departmentthe significance of Coldof the Navy 1994). This Note referenced the NRHPcriterion for measuring significance of resources not yet 50 years old, that they must be ofexceptionalimportance to a community, a state, a region, or the nation to be considered eligiblefor the NRHP.In addition to the Navy's Program Note, more specific guidance for evaluating buildings orstructures dating to the Cold War period is found in the Air Force's Iuterim Guidelines (Green1993). These Guidelinescontain criteria, modeled on those for the NRHP, designed to facilita
Cold War resources conducted at MFA and NASA Crows Landing Flight Facility. In support of this survey, NASA contracted with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to prepare a cultural resources investigation to fulfill the identification requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). .
Mississippi Forest Inventory (MFI) Inventory Unit First Inventory Second Inventory Southwest 2004 2012 Southeast 2005 2013 Central 2006 2014 North 2007 2015 Delta 2008 2016. USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Initiated in 1930's Continuous forest inventory Forest Area and Distribution Species, size and health of trees
Inventory Approver and an Inventory Administrator has reviewed it and marked it to be posted to the core AM tables. In Process: The inventory transaction is being posted. Posted: Inventory Code and asset information updates have been posted to the core AM tables. PS 1.Use the Inventory Status field to approve or reject an inventory .
property inventory system. The PCO will also prepare annual inventory control printouts and furnish them to all ODOC facilities/units. III. Inventory Control Officers and Agents Each facility/unit will designate an inventory control officer (ICO) who may designate one or more inventory control agents (ICA) to maintain inventory records
19.Preferred Teaching Approach Inventory 20.Principles of Adult Learning Scale 21.Teacher BehaviorPreferences Survey 22.Teaching Goals Inventory 23.Teaching Methods Inventory 24.Trainer Style Inventory 25.Training Style Inventory 26.Trainer Type Inventory 27.Effective Teacher Inventory 28.Clinical Teacher Characteristics Instrument 29 .
Balance sheet Inventory Cost / Unit Inventory Value x Holding Cost Inventory Turns Inventory Value Inventory Turns Wal Mart Stores Inc. Kmart Corp. . Restaurant; High Tech; Inventory decisions 1 Christmas Tree Problem 100 8 15 22 29 2 9 16 23 30 3 10 17 24 31 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28
An inventory valuation method that assumes the most recent products added to your inventory are the ones to be sold first. Average inventory cost . An inventory valuation method that bases its figure on the average cost of items throughout an accounting period. Average inventory . The average inventory on-hand over a given time period,
The cost of ending inventory can be determined by using ABC Method of inventory accounting or the FIFO or LIFO inventory accounting methods, or any less ordinary technique. Beginning inventory for the financial year under study is ending inventory . Perpetual inventory systems provide the company owner with a proof of what is sold, when it .
Final Exam Answers just a click away ECO 372 Final Exam ECO 561 Final Exam FIN 571 Final Exam FIN 571 Connect Problems FIN 575 Final Exam LAW 421 Final Exam ACC 291 Final Exam . LDR 531 Final Exam MKT 571 Final Exam QNT 561 Final Exam OPS 571
