Former Military Personnel,

Safety and historic preservation are indeed "apples" and "oranges." Ok, lets
take the Series 600, 700, and 800 wooden Temporary buildings constructed by
the Department of War and Department of Defense between 1917 and 1945. Your
take on this is that human safety should dictate demolition of all those
buildings. My take is we have a legal responsibility under Section 110 and
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to objectively review the
significance under Criterion A, B, C, and D and then assess the historic
context. Our job is not to rationalize political, engineering, or safety
reasons for demolishing the structures.

Each military base needs broad objective assessment for what those buildings
can say in the historic landscape. For example, if some buildings contribute
to understanding the Battle of Dutch Harbor in the War of the Aleutians, then
there may be grounds for preserving a portion of the temporary buildings at
that location. If some buildings contribute to understanding the Japanese
attack on Hickam Field in the Pearl Harbor attack, then we need to consider
preservation of a portion of those buildings to protect the historic context.
In those instances, we may recommend lead paint abatement, installation of
sprinkler systems, installation of halon fire suppression, and removal of
non-contributing elements like sliding glass doors and aluminum windows.

Naturally, there are going to be thousands of military bases under closure or
new construction projects that do not have historical value. In those
instances, the architectural historian may recommend the Base Environmental
Officer seek SHPO concurrence these are not eligible for inclusion on the
National Register. Those Temporary Series 600, 700, and 800 buildings
probably will be demolished.

My point is that your position is not appropriate for our mission in historic
preservation. Personally, I find quonset huts, Nissen huts, and Temporary
buildings to be an important part in American history. I personally disagree
with the blanket mitigation plan used by the Department of Defense to use
Categorical Exemption to justify demolition. But then, that is my
Constitutional right to have such an opinion.

Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.