**APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OF A PROPERTY**

**IN THE U.S. WORLD HERITAGE TENTATIVE LIST**

**PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION**

The National Park Service Office of International Affairs is working
together with the George Wright Society to draft the new U.S. World
Heritage Tentative List (Tentative List) of sites that will serve as the
inventory of properties in the United States which the U.S. considers
suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List. The Tentative List
is being prepared with the involvement of property owners and other
stakeholders, including the public, to guide U.S. nomination of future
sites for inscription on the World Heritage List.

This **Application** is available to be filled out on a strictly
voluntary basis by or for property owners of nationally important sites.
Information provided by all the submitted applications will form the
foundation for Department of the Interior decisions on which sites to
include in the new Tentative List. Property owners who wish their
properties to be considered for addition to the U.S. Tentative List must
submit their completed applications on or before April 1, 2007.

**GENERAL INFORMATION**

**Background:**

The World Heritage Convention was initiated in 1973 to organize
international cooperation for the recognition and protection of the
world's natural and cultural heritage, first and foremost for sites
inscribed in the World Heritage List established by the Convention, but
also for all the heritage of humanity. The World Heritage Convention
today has 182 signatory countries.

World Heritage Sites are internationally recognized through UNESCO
(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) as
the most outstanding examples of the world's cultural and natural
heritage. Currently, there are 830 World Heritage Sites in 138
countries. There are 20 World Heritage Sites in the United States, of
which 8 are designated for culture and 12 for nature. The U.S. is among
the top 10 of countries in terms of the number of sites on the World
Heritage List.

A Tentative List is a national list of natural and cultural properties
that a country believes appear to meet the eligibility criteria for
nomination to the World Heritage List. It is an annotated list of
candidate sites which a country intends to nominate within a given time
period. (A section of the World Heritage Centre's website, which is
accessible at **http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelist,** provides
information on the Tentative List process and access to the current
lists of other countries.)

The U.S. is now updating its Tentative List to serve as a guide for at
least the next decade (2009-2019) of U.S. nominations to the World
Heritage List. The Tentative List will be structured so as to meet the
World Heritage Committee's December 2004 request that any one nation
nominate no more than two sites per year, at least one of which must be
a natural nomination. The number of individual sites planned to be
included in the new U.S. Tentative List may be somewhat larger than 20
to permit discretion in selecting nominations and because some sites may
become grouped together as a single nomination, e.g., to represent
jointly an important historical theme or shared ecological relationship.

**Introduction:**

The National Park Service Office of International Affairs, working on
behalf of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the
Department of the Interior and together with the George Wright Society,
is soliciting recommendations of sites to be considered for the
inventory of properties which the U.S. considers suitable for
inscription on the World Heritage List. This document provides both a
general explanation of the project to prepare the new Tentative List and
an **Application**, which is designed to solicit public participation in
the process to develop the new list. Additional information appears in
the document **"U.S. World Heritage Tentative List:** **Questions and
Answers**." Directions to sources of detailed advice are also provided
there.
**(http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/faqtentativelist.htm).**

To have a property be considered for possible inclusion on the Tentative
List, the property owner or the owner's authorized representative must
complete the attached **Application** and submit it no later than April
1, 2007. The National Park Service will use the submitted information to
help determine whether a property meets the legal prerequisites for
World Heritage nomination and otherwise appears to be a strong candidate
for nomination during the next decade. If a property is selected for
possible inclusion in the Tentative List, the owner may be asked to
provide additional information on a case-by-case basis. The Department
of the Interior will make the final determination of which sites to
include in the U.S. Tentative List.

This **Application** is available on request. It is also being
distributed to all who have previously requested it. In addition, it is
available on the Office of International Affairs website at
[http://www.nps.gov/oia/worldheritage.application.htm](http://www.nps.gov/oia/worldheritage.questionnaire.htm)
and on the George Wright Society webpage at
**http://www.georgewright.org.**

The Tentative List prepared through this process will be submitted by
the Secretary of the Interior through the Secretary of State to the
World Heritage Centre of UNESCO by February 1, 2008. The United States
will become eligible to begin the process of nominating any of the sites
contained in the new Tentative List for inscription to the World
Heritage List starting in February 2009. The new Tentative List will
supersede a similar list of sites, previously referred to as the
Indicative Inventory that was completed in 1982.

**Legal Property Rights:**

Inclusion of a property in the U.S. Tentative List or the World Heritage
List does not in any way affect the legal status of, or an owner's
rights in, a property. Final inclusion of a property in the World
Heritage List includes recognition that the property remains subject to
all U.S. laws applicable to the property.

**APPLICATION PROCESS**

U.S. law and program regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations 73)
require that **[all property owners must concur in any World Heritage
nomination and in any proposal that their property be included in the
U.S. Tentative List.]{.underline}** Thus, to be eligible for proposing a
property for the new Tentative List, an application must include the
signatures of all the owners or their representatives.

**In the event that owners of properties that are included in the
Tentative List change their minds as to whether they wish their
properties to be considered, their properties will be withdrawn from the
Tentative List and corresponding adjustments will be made in the
composition of the Tentative List.**

**First Step: Completion of Questionnaires:**

Only owners or those authorized by owners may apply. Applicants must use
the accompanying **Application**, which may be submitted electronically
by e-mail, on paper by mail or fax, or by mailing a compact disc
containing a MS Word file.

Only a single copy is required. Please provide the necessary information
if you would like receipt of the **Application** to be acknowledged**.**

E-mail submissions should be sent to:

> [**jcharleton@contractor.nps.gov**](mailto:jcharleton@contractor.nps.gov)

Mailed submissions should be sent to:

> **U.S. World Heritage Tentative List Project**
>
> **Office of International Affairs (0050)**
>
> **1201 Eye Street, NW, Suite 550A**
>
> **U.S. National Park Service**
>
> **Washington, DC 20240**

Faxed submissions should be addressed to U.S. World Heritage Tentative
List Project and faxed to:

> Fax: 202-371-1446

To receive full consideration, completed **Applications** must be
returned on or before April 1, 2007.

**Second Step: National Park Service Evaluation of Applications and
Consultation with Owners**

Only properties whose owners submit, or authorize to have submitted on
their behalf, complete **Applications** will receive full evaluation for
possible final inclusion in the Tentative List.

The National Park Service Office of International Affairs will notify
owners of properties that appear, based on professional staff evaluation
of the initial **Application**, to be the most likely candidates for
inclusion in the Tentative List. Depending on the number of responses
received and an assessment of other factors, including the completeness
and accuracy of the information submitted, those owners may be asked to
correct or amend their original **Applications.** Joint revision of
**Applications** may be recommended in some cases, if it is being
suggested that some properties be grouped for inclusion together. Owners
of properties which are selected for the second step of the process
should be notified by May 1, 2007, with an estimated deadline for their
further responses of June 15, 2007.

Owners whose properties are not recommended for further consideration
for inclusion in the Tentative List will also be notified of the results
and provided with a statement of the reasons their properties were not
included. Owners who disagree with an initial recommendation by the
National Park Service that their properties not be selected for
inclusion in the Tentative List may submit a written response, which
will be provided to the next level of reviewers of the draft Tentative
List for their consideration.

**Third Step: Developing the Tentative List:**

The National Park Service recommendations will receive additional
reviews, including comments by interested organizations and members of
the public. After these reviews, the Secretary of the Interior, through
the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks and in
accordance with the World Heritage program regulations, will approve and
finalize the official U.S. Tentative List and forward it to the U.S.
Department of State for submittal to the World Heritage Committee by
February 1, 2008. An accompanying

report will explain in detail the process and reasoning by which the
sites included in the final Tentative List were selected.

**Evaluation Criteria:**

The criteria that will be used in evaluating and selecting sites for
inclusion in the Tentative List will include the World Heritage
criteria, obtaining a good balance among types of sites, and technical
judgment, based on past experience, of which sites are most likely to be
favorably received by the World Heritage Committee and its Advisory
Bodies.

Some criteria for selecting sites will involve the scholarly process of
identifying "gaps" and reviewing and conducting comparative studies of
related types of sites. Comparative studies conducted by the World
Heritage Committee's Advisory Bodies on the listing of sites\--IUCN (the
World Conservation Union) and ICOMOS (the International Council on
Monuments and Sites) will be carefully consulted. Because these studies
leave unaddressed many types of sites, such as marine sites and
multi-national nominations, it will be difficult in the short term to
achieve a well balanced list for closing "gaps" in the U.S. list,
especially given the small number of sites that will be nominated during
the next decade.

Another factor in the selection process is that it is not possible to
predict in advance how many owners will complete **Applications**
requesting that individual properties be considered for the new
Tentative List and how quickly nominations for those properties that are
selected can be finalized and submitted. The number of **Applications**
that are returned will affect the task of grouping sites and developing
a long-term schedule for their consideration.

**IMPLEMENTATION OF THE U.S. TENTATIVE LIST**

Once the new Tentative List has been established, it may not be feasible
or practical to develop a schedule of the sequence for nominations that
might be offered in particular years. There are a number of
considerations that will impact that process including changes over time
in Administrations and the need to consider owners who have already
requested inclusion---in some cases a number of years ago\--and who have
already expended substantial efforts toward nominating their sites.

**HOW TO COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION**

Before completing the body of the **Application**, please review the
next few pages that deal with "Prerequisites" to determine if you should
proceed.

This **Application,** designed to obtain key information about
properties being proposed for inclusion in the U.S. World Heritage
Tentative List, is a simplified version of the World Heritage nomination
form (**Format)** **(<http://whc.unesco.org/en/nomination>)** used to
nominate properties to the World Heritage List. A few questions have
been added at the beginning to make it appropriate for use in the United
States.

Please use this **Application** as a template. If you prepare it on a
computer, you should be able to open up space between the questions so
that you can avoid the use of continuation sheets. You should also feel
free to adapt the language of the questions and your responses to fit
the circumstances of the site or sites that you are proposing (as, for
example, plural rather than singular forms).

Please try to complete the **Application** as fully as possible. If you
do not know or are not sure about how to respond to a certain question,
please indicate that you do not know the answer by noting that it is
"unknown" or "uncertain," rather than not responding at all.

For this **Application**, it is not necessary for you to include
documentation in the form of full footnotes and bibliography, but please
do give the source of any key quotations upon which you are justifying
the property's importance in the *Justification (Section 3).*

**For Additional Information and Assistance:**

A written [Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program]{.underline}, which
includes detailed instructions on how to complete World Heritage
nominations and which follows the numbering scheme of the **Format**, is
available to help with resolving questions that arise in filling out
this **Application**. The Guide is available upon request or can be
downloaded at. <http://www.nps.gov/oia/worldheritage.application.htm>
Applicants may also find it useful to consult the **[Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention](http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=57)
(http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf),** the main written
working tool on World Heritage issues at the international level.

Technical assistance and additional information about how to complete
this Application will be available from:

> James H. Charleton
>
> World Heritage Advisor
>
> Office of International Affairs
>
> National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW (0050)
>
> Washington, DC 20005.
>
> E-mail: [james\_
> charleton@contractor.nps.gov](mailto:james_ charleton@contractor.nps.gov).
>
> Fax 202-371-1446.

Phone inquiries may also be placed to him at 202-354-1802 or to April
Brooks at 202-354-1808.

In completing the **Application**, it will be useful for you to consult
not only with the NPS Office of International Affairs, but also to seek
advice from the U.S. International Council on Monuments and Sites
(US/ICOMOS) and the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature of the U.S. (IUCN USA), depending on the nature
of the sites being proposed. Contacts for them are:

**USICOMOS IUCN USA & Caribbean Multilateral Office**

401 F Street, NW, Suite 331 1630 Connecticut Ave. NW, 3^rd^ floor

## Washington, DC 20001 Washington, DC 20009 

202-842-1866 202-387-4826

Learned societies, museums, professional organizations, etc., may also
be asked to assist.

**OMB Control #: 1024-0250**

**Exp. Date:** 08/31/2009

**APPLICATION FOR INCLUSION OF A PROPERTY**

**IN THE U.S. WORLD HERITAGE TENTATIVE LIST**

**PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT:**

16 U.S.C. 470 a-1 authorizes collection of this information. This
information will be used to help the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks prepare a "Tentative List" of candidate sites for
possible nomination to the UNESCO World Heritage List. Response to this
request is voluntary. No action may be taken against you for refusing to
supply the information requested. A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

**ESTIMATED BURDEN STATEMENT:**

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated
to average 64 hours per response (ranging from 40 to 120 hours,
depending on the complexity of the site), including the time for
reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing
and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate
or any other aspect of this form to the Office of International Affairs,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240.

### 

### 

### 

### Dayton Aviation Sites

### Prerequisites for U.S. World Heritage Nominations

**Prerequisite 1 - Legal Requirements:**

**A. National Significance:**

Has the property been formally determined to be nationally significant
for its cultural values, natural values, or both (in other words, has it
been formally designated as a National Historic Landmark, a National
Natural Landmark, or as a Federal reserve of national importance, such
as a National Park, National Monument, or National Wildlife Refuge)? If
not, are there on-going processes to achieve any of the above
designations and what is their status? *(Listing in the National
Register of Historic Places is [not]{.underline} equivalent to National
Historic Landmark status.)*

YES: \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:

Huffman Prairie Flying Field -- NHL 21 June 1990; Dayton Aviation
Heritage National Historical Park 16 October 1992

Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing Shop -- NHL 21 June
1990; Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park 16 October 1992

Wright Flyer III -- NHL 21 June 1990; within Wright Hall, Dayton
Aviation Heritage National Historical Park 16 October 1992

Hawthorn Hill (Orville Wright Mansion) -- NHL 17 June 1991
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**B. Owner Concurrence:**

Are all the property owners aware of this proposal for the inclusion of
the property in the U.S. Tentative List and do all of the property
owners agree that it should be considered? If any agreement is uncertain
or tentative, or if the ownership situation is disputed, otherwise
complicated, or unclear, please explain the issues briefly.

YES: \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: See attached letters of concurrence
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**C. Willingness to Discuss Protective Measures:**

If the property is nominated to the World Heritage List, it will be
necessary for all of the property owners to work with the Department of
the Interior to document fully existing measures to protect the property
and possibly to devise such additional measures as may be necessary to
protect the property in perpetuity. Are all the property owners willing
to enter into such discussions?

YES: \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**D. Scheduling:**

If you wish a property to be nominated to the World Heritage List in a
particular year during the period 2009-2019, please indicate the
reason(s) why and the earliest year in which you feel it will be
possible to meet all requirements for nomination*. (Please review this
entire **Questionnaire** before finally answering this question.)*

Preferred Year: No preferred year

Reasons:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Prerequisite 2 - Specific Requirements for Nomination of Certain Types
of Properties:**

**E. Serial (multi-component) Properties:**

If you are proposing a nomination that includes separate components that
could be submitted separately over several years, do you believe that
the first property proposed would qualify to be placed on the World
Heritage List in its own right?

*Explanation: There will be a very limited number of sites nominated
over the next decade. Owners of similar properties likely will be
encouraged to work together to present joint proposals for serial
nominations. An example would be a proposal to nominate several
properties designed by the same architect. It is critical to note that
the first property presented in a serial nomination must qualify for
listing in its own right.*

YES: \_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: While the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, the lead unit of this
nomination, qualifies for placement on the World Heritage List in its
own right, separate nominations for the individual properties identified
in this document are not foreseen.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**F. Serial (multi-component) Properties:**

Are you proposing this property as an extension of or a new component to
an existing World Heritage Site?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO X\_\_\_\_\_\_

Name of Existing Site:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Prerequisite 3 - Other Requirements:**

**G. Support of Stakeholders**

In addition to owners, please list other stakeholders and interested
parties who support the property's proposed inclusion in the Tentative
List. Also note any known to be opposed.

*Explanation: The purpose of the Tentative List is to propose candidate
properties that are likely to be successfully nominated during the next
decade. It is clear that a consensus among stakeholders will be helpful
in nominating a site and later in securing its proper protection. Thus,
only properties that enjoy strong, preferably unanimous, support from
stakeholders will be recommended for inclusion in the U.S. Tentative
List.*

*In addition to owners, stakeholders primarily include:*

*\--Governors, Members of Congress and State legislators who represent
the area where the property is located,*

*\--the highest local elected official, or official body, unless there
is none,*

*\--Native Americans, American Indian tribes, or other groups and
individuals who possess legally recognized claims or privileges in the
area or at the site being proposed (e.g., life tenancy or hunting and
fishing rights),*

*\--organizations established to advocate for protection and appropriate
use of the property proposed for nomination.*

*If definitive information is not available at the time you filled out
this Questionnaire, please so indicate.*

Supporters:

The Wright Family Foundation; the United States Air Force; Dayton
History; the local Congressional delegation (Senator Brown;
Representatives Turner and Hobson); Ohio Governor Ted Strickland; Dayton
Mayor Rhine McLin; the National Trust for Historic Preservation;
Preservation Dayton; the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and
Space Museum; the Aviation Heritage Foundation (and the National
Aviation Heritage Area); the Ohio Historical Society; and Aviation
Trail, Inc.

Opponents: This application faces no known community opposition

Comment: Please see enclosed letters of support and refer to the letter
submitted by Senator Brown directly to the NPS Office of International
Affairs.

**Information Requested about Applicant Properties**

**(The numbers of the sections and subsections below are in the same
order as and correspond to sections of the World Heritage Committee's
official [Format]{.underline} used for the nomination of World Heritage
Sites. This is to allow easy reference to and comparison of the
material.)**

**1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES**

**1.a. Country:**

If it is intended that the suggested nomination will include any
properties in countries other than the United States, please note the
countries here.

*Explanation: Please note that the United States can nominate only
property under U.S. jurisdiction. You are not expected to contact other
governments and owners abroad, although you may do so if you wish. Each
national government must nominate its own sites, although the United
States will consider forwarding your suggestion to another government
for that government to consider as a joint nomination with the United
States.*

Names of countries: United States of America

**1.b. State, Province or Region:**

In what State(s) and/or Territories is the property located? Also note
the locality and give a street address if one is available.

-   Huffman Prairie Flying Field: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
    Greene County, Ohio 45433 (part of Dayton Aviation Heritage National
    Historical Park)

-   Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing: 22 South
    Williams Street, Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio 45402 (part of
    Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park)

-   Wright Flyer III/Wright Hall: Dayton History at Carillon Park, 1000
    Carillon Boulevard, Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio 45409 (part of
    Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park)

-   Hawthorn Hill: 901 Harman Avenue, Oakwood, Montgomery County, Ohio
    45419

> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**1.c. Names of Property:**

What is the preferred or proposed name of the property or properties
proposed for nomination? If the site has multiple names, explain why you
chose the primary choice or choices. (*The name should not exceed 200
characters, including spaces and punctuation.)*

Dayton Aviation Sites

***Popular and Historic names***

What are any popular or historic names by which the property is also
known?

-   Huffman Prairie Flying Field (part of Dayton Aviation Heritage
    National Historical Park)

-   Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing (part of Dayton
    Aviation Heritage National Historical Park)

-   1905 Wright Flyer III; John W. Berry, Sr. Wright Brothers Aviation
    Center (part of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park)

-   Hawthorn Hill (Wright Mansion).

***Naming of serial (multiple component) properties and transboundary
sites*.**

Try to choose brief descriptive names. In the case of serial
nominations, give an overall name to the group (e.g., *Baroque Churches
of the Philippines*). (*Give the names of the individual components in a
table that you insert under **1f.)***

Group or Transboundary Name: Dayton Aviation Sites
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***Other names or site numbers***

*Explanation: If a site has multiple names, explain why you chose the
primary choice or choices. If the site has no common name or is known
only by a number or set of numbers, please explain.*

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**1.d.-e. Location, boundaries, and key features of the nominated
property**

Include with this **Application** sketch maps or other small maps,
preferably letter-size, that show:

\- the location of the property

\- the boundaries of any zones of special legal protection

\- the position of major natural features and/or individual buildings
and structures

\- any open spaces (squares, plazas) and other major spatial
relationships (the space between buildings may at times be more
important than the buildings)

Please provide here a list of the maps that you have included.

> **1. Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park Boundary Map,
> June 2002 (referencing plot 101-01 for Huffman Prairie Flying Field,
> 101-05 for Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing, and
> 101-02 for Wright Hall, which houses the Wright Flyer III)**
>
> **2. Map of Hawthorn Hill, Montgomery County, Ohio, Recorder's
> Office**
>
> **3. Map of the West Third Street National Register District (with the
> location of Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing
> emboldened)**
>
> **4. Map of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, showing
> the relative locations of Huffman Prairie Flying Field and Carillon
> Historical Park (the location of Wright Hall and the Wright Flyer III
> within Wright Brothers Aviation Center)**
>
> **5. Detail map of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park
> (taken from part of Map 4), showing the location of Wright Cycle
> Company and Wright and Wright Printing (as the "Wright Cycle
> Company")**
>
> **6. Map of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base**

**1.f. Area of nominated property (ha.)**

*Explanation: State the approximate area proposed in hectares (1
hectare=2.471 acres). Give corresponding acre equivalents in
parentheses. Insert just below this question a table for serial
nominations that shows the names and addresses of the component parts,
regions (if different for different components), and areas.*

**Total Nominated Area: 35.51 ha (87.91 acres)**

+------------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+
| **Site Name**    | **Address**                          | **Area**  |
+------------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+
| **1. Huffman     | **Wright Patterson Air Force Base,   | **34.1 ha |
| Prairie Flying   | Ohio 45433**                         | (84.4     |
| Field**          |                                      | acres)**  |
+------------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+
| **2. Wright      | **22 South Williams Street, Dayton,  | **0.06 ha |
| Cycle Company    | Ohio, 45402**                        | (0.16     |
| and**            |                                      | acres)**  |
|                  |                                      |           |
| **Wright and     |                                      |           |
| Wright           |                                      |           |
| Printing**       |                                      |           |
+------------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+
| **3. Wright      | **Dayton History at Carillon Park,   | **0.14 ha |
| Flyer III/Wright | 1000 Carillon Boulevard, Dayton,     | (0.35     |
| Hall**           | Ohio 45409**                         | acres)**  |
+------------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+
| **4. Hawthorn    | **901 Harman Avenue, Oakwood, Ohio   | **1.21 ha |
| Hill**           | 45419**                              | (3        |
|                  |                                      | acres)**  |
+------------------+--------------------------------------+-----------+

**2. DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY**

**2.a. Description of the Property**

(select the one following category that best fits the property)

###### Cultural property

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages should be all that is required.

*Explanation: This section can describe significant buildings, their
architectural style, date of construction, materials, etc. It can also
describe the setting such as gardens, parks, associated vistas. Other
tangible geographic, cultural, historic, archeological, artistic,
architectural, and/or associative values may also merit inclusion.*

1\. Huffman Prairie Flying Field is the site where Orville (1871-1948)
and Wilbur Wright (1867-1912) conducted research and experimentation
that led to the 1905 development of the world's first practical
airplane, the Wright Flyer III. At the time of the Wrights' work, it was
a cow pasture covered with prairie vegetation owned by Dayton banker
Torrence Huffman. The 34 ha (84 acre) site, now preserved as part of
Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, is approximately 13
km (8 mi) from the site of the Wrights' home in west Dayton. An open
landscape with a few mature trees, the Huffman Prairie Flying Field
contains a reproduction of the Wrights' 1905 hangar built near the
location of the original hangar and a reproduction of the Simms Station
interurban railway platform used by the Wrights in their travels between
their home and Huffman Prairie. The footprint of the site of the larger
hangar built by the Wrights in 1910 is marked with limestone blocks;
archaeologists have not determined the site of the hangar built and used
by the Wrights in 1904. The site of the Wrights' experiments is now
maintained as informal pasture through periodic mowing, with flagpoles
marking the corners of its Wright-era boundaries. It borders the 44.1 ha
(109-acre) Huffman Prairie, one of the largest remaining tallgrass
prairies in Ohio and an Ohio Natural Landmark. The Secretary of the
Interior designated the Huffman Prairie Flying Field a National Historic
Landmark in 1990, and it became part of Dayton Aviation Heritage
National Historical Park in 1992; the NPS's American Aviation Heritage
National Historic Landmark theme study (2006) also identifies and
contextualizes the site. The American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics named the Flying Field a Historic Aerospace Site in 2003.

2\. Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing (22 South
Williams Street): The building rented by Orville and Wilbur Wright from
1895 to 1897 for their bicycle sales and repair business (housed on its
first floor) and their job printing shop (on its second floor) is a
two-storey detached rectangular commercial brick edifice with a full
basement and a single-storey rear frame addition with 235.4 m² (2,534
ft²) of usable space. Located less than 200 m (650 ft) from the site of
the Wright home at 7 Hawthorne Street (the family's residence from 1871
to 1878 and 1884 to 1914), this 1886 building built by Abraham and
Joseph Nicholas served as a grocery store, feed store, saloon, and
boarding house before its rental by the Wrights. Its principal
first-floor façade, fronting South Williams Street to the west, contains
large display windows capped with a limestone lintel supported by four
one-piece limestone columns with stylized capitals. A double door on the
north face of the building likely provided a freight entrance to
building occupants, while a double door with a transom window situated
directly above the first-floor double door likely provided freight
access to the second floor. Aside from the storefront display windows,
the building has two-over-two double-hung sash windows with
darkly-painted shutters and limestone lintels and sills. At some point
between the end of the Wrights' lease in 1897 and 1911, the building's
owners converted it into a two-family residence. Between 1985 and 1988
Aviation Trail, Inc., a Dayton aviation history nonprofit organization,
rehabilitated the structure to its approximate 1895-1897 appearance. The
Secretary of the Interior designated the building a National Historic
Landmark in 1990, and it became part of Dayton Aviation Heritage
National Historical Park in 1992. The NPS's American Aviation Heritage
National Historic Landmark theme study (2006) also identifies and
contextualizes the site.

3\. Wright Flyer III/Wright Hall: Designated a National Historic
Landmark by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior in 1990, this muslin and
ash/spruce airplane, built and modified throughout 1905, is the final of
three experimental airplanes designed and built by the Wright brothers
as they worked to create a practical airplane (the others being their
1903 and 1904 airplanes). Weighing 322 kg (710 lbs) and standing 2.87 m
(9.4 ft) tall and 8.5 m (28 ft) long, the airplane has a wing area of
46.7 m² (503 ft²) and a horizontal front rudder area of 7.71 m² (83 m²).
Its power came from a 14.914 kW (20 hp) engine connected to twin pusher
propellers. The airplane's pilot lay prone on the lower wing to the left
of the engine with hips in a cradle harness laterally connected to a
system of wires that operated a helical twist in both wings. The pilot
operated the plane's rudder with his left hand, while using his right
hand to operate an upright lever that controlled the plane's elevators.
Restored from 1947 to 1950, initially under the supervision of Orville
Wright, the plane retains approximately 85 percent of its 1905 material.
The Flyer (and Wright Hall, the National Register-eligible building in
which it is exhibited) became part of Dayton Aviation Heritage National
Historical Park in 1992; the NPS's American Aviation Heritage National
Historic Landmark theme study (2006) also identifies and contextualizes
the airplane. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers named it a
Historic Mechanical Engineering Landmark in 2003.

4\. Hawthorn Hill: Designated a National Historic Landmark by the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior in 1991 (and identified and contextualized in
the NPS's American Aviation Heritage National Historic Landmark theme
study \[2006\]), this two-and-one-half-storey brick building completed
in 1914 was home to Orville Wright from 1914 until 1948, and to his
father, Milton Wright (1828-1917), and sister, Katharine Wright Haskell
(1874-1929), for shorter periods of time. With a design envisioned by
Orville and, before his 1912 death, Wilbur Wright, and refined by the
Dayton architectural firm of Schenck and Williams, the biaxially
symmetrical Georgian Revival structure contains 15 rooms and 580 m²
(6,242 ft²) of living space. Its concrete foundation supports walls of
white-faced brick. Four wooden Ionic columns extend two storeys on the
north and south faces of the mansion, each supporting a pediment
containing a fanlight. Classically-detailed pilasters serve as a
transition between the porticos and the rectangular mass of the central
building. The large first-floor entry doors are flanked by glass
sidelights. On the second floor, Palladian windows extend behind
ornamental balconies and are flanked by oval bull's eye windows with a
frame of voussoirs and a radiating glazing bar system resembling the
fanlights.

The house has a low-pitch hipped roof truncated at the top with a wooden
balustrade. The 1.5 m (4.9 ft) entablature features modillions
resembling a dentil band to visually support the cornice. The side
porches are topped with balustrades that match the roof balusters and
the balusters under the porch rail. Simpler Tuscan columns and a
scaled-down version of the main eave entablature unite the porches with
the core building by retaining graceful proportions. Prominent chimneys
extend through the roof on the east and west sides, with bathroom
windows opening through them. Plane-gabled roof dormers feature cornice
returns and arched tracery windows. The prominent window style is a
six-over-one double-hung window used throughout the structure and
grouped in such a way on the first floor to produce triple windows. The
keystone lintels feature brick voussoirs with limestone keystones from
Bedford, Indiana. Window sills and all outside steps are also limestone.

The main stair hall dominates the interior as its central organizing
feature. Downstairs, the hall divides dining spaces from leisure spaces.
Upstairs, seven bedrooms are placed symmetrically around four bathrooms.
The northwest corner of both principal floors is reserved for a
housekeeper's suite, while the attic space is high and open.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

1\. Huffman Prairie Flying Field: This site's status as the location of
research, development, and testing that led to the creation of the first
practical airplane (the Wright Flyer III) and as the place where humans
learned to fly qualifies it for the World Heritage List. While Wilbur
and Orville Wright attained the first free, controlled, and sustained
flights in a power-driven heavier-than-air machine at Kitty Hawk, North
Carolina, in December of 1903, their tests at the Huffman Prairie Flying
Field in 1904 and 1905 transformed a barely-controllable airplane that
flew for less than a minute into the first practical, controllable
aircraft in the world. Research and development at Huffman Prairie
Flying Field using the scientific method led to their construction of an
airplane that could take off, fly until it exhausted its fuel supply,
land safely, and do so repeatedly. It was at Huffman Prairie Flying
Field that the Wrights' research led to their separating airplane rudder
control from wing-warping, allowing the pilot to control their aircraft
in three dimensions of flight and enhancing airplane stability by
enlarging the craft's elevator. The site's qualifications for the World
Heritage List are enhanced by the integrity of its cultural landscape,
which retains its original location and high degrees of setting,
feeling, and association, and also retains significant degrees of design
and materials.

2\. Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing: The small brick
building at 22 South Williams Street in Dayton is the location where
Orville and Wilbur Wright initiated their research process into the
possibility of heavier-than-air powered flight. It provided an
environment in which they started to apply their understanding of the
physics and mechanics of bicycles to the physics and mechanics of
aviation and where, through their printing and bicycle businesses, they
created the working relationship through which they later produced their
gliders and invented the airplane. Their Wright Cycle Company (on the
first floor of 22 South Williams Street) and Wright and Wright Printing
(on the building's second floor) also provided them sufficient income to
support the experiments that led to their later tests at the Huffman
Prairie Flying Field and their invention of the practical airplane.

3\. Wright Flyer III/Wright Hall: As the world's first practical
airplane, the Wright Flyer III qualifies for the World Heritage List as
the culminating product and physical representation of the 1899-1905
research, development and experimentation conducted by Wilbur and
Orville Wright. It was the first airplane in the world capable of
sustained, controlled flight and suitable for practical use since it
took off and landed in a controlled, safe manner. It was the first
airplane able to bank, turn, circle, and make figure-eight patterns in
the sky and the first airplane capable of performing the uses envisioned
by the Wrights for airplanes: military scouting, transportation of mail
to isolated locations, exploration, and sport. Orville Wright
participated in designing Wright Hall, which opened to the public in
1950, as a purpose-built exhibit facility for the Wright Flyer at
Dayton's Carillon Park.

4\. Hawthorn Hill: Orville Wright's mansion in Oakwood, Ohio, represents
the international status achieved by the Wrights after their development
of the practical airplane and their demonstration of it in Europe in
1908 and 1909 and subsequent sales and licensing agreements with
governments and individuals. Though the extremely introverted Orville
considered Hawthorn Hill a personal defense against the intrusions of
the outside world, the property symbolizes the economic success the
Wrights achieved from the international marketing of their work in
aviation research and development.

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

1\. Huffman Prairie Flying Field is a component of Dayton Aviation
Heritage National Historical Park and is open for public visitation on
scheduled hours. The United States Air Force, working with the National
Park Service, maintains the site as a historic property, closely
resembling its 1905 landscape, though the field is no longer used for
pasturage and aviators do not modify and test airplanes there. The site
maintains its traditional character as an open field. No changes in its
future operations are foreseen.

2\. Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing: A rental
commercial property upon its construction in 1886, this building became
a residential duplex at some point after 1911. Now owned and operated by
the National Park Service as part of Dayton Aviation Heritage National
Historical Park, the 22 South Williams Street property contains exhibits
examining the Wrights' bicycle business and relationships between
bicycles and early Wright airplanes, and a representational
reconstruction of what the Wrights' bicycle sales area and workshop (no
written descriptions or photographs of the respective areas exist)
during the 1895 to 1897 period. The building's second floor -- the site
of Wright and Wright Printing -- is used for National Park Service
offices. The first floor is open to visitors on scheduled hours. No
changes in the site's future operations are foreseen.

3\. Wright Flyer III/Wright Hall: Dayton History's Carillon Park
exhibits the 1905 airplane on scheduled hours in Wright Hall, a
commemorative building built between 1948 and 1950 with design
assistance from Orville Wright specifically to exhibit the 1905 airplane
(and only the 1905 airplane). Wright Hall is eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places and a component of Dayton Aviation
Heritage National Historical Park. Today, the airplane is a static
museum piece, retaining the vast majority of its 1905 structure, and no
longer flies. Since 1950, the airplane's location and its public
exhibition have not changed, and no changes in its exhibition location
or schedule are foreseen.

4\. Hawthorn Hill: The Wrights built Hawthorn Hill as a residence;
between 1914 and 1948 it served as Orville Wright's primary residence
(and, for shorter periods, as the primary residence of his father and
sister). From 1948 to 2006, the private, Dayton-based National Cash
Register company used Hawthorn Hill as a guest house for corporate
visitors. NCR retained many Wright furnishings after its acquisition of
the property, and the physical layout and landscape of the property
changed minimally between Orville's 1948 death and NCR's 2006 donation
of Hawthorn Hill to the Wright Family Foundation. In cooperation with
Dayton History, the National Park Service, and the city of Oakwood, the
Wright Family Foundation anticipates opening Hawthorn Hill to public
visitation as a historic house property during the summer of 2007. The
Wright Family Foundation hopes to add Hawthorn Hill to Dayton Aviation
Heritage National Historical Park.

**Cultural landscapes (*combined works of nature and humans*)**

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages is all that is required.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

Consider how both natural and cultural processes have contributed to
creating the cultural

Landscape and give special attention to the interaction of humans and
nature. All major aspects of the history of human activity in the area
need to be considered.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

###### Natural property

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages is all that is required.

*Explanation: This section can describe* *the property's important
physical features and scientific values, including geography, geology,
topography, habitats, species and population sizes (including an
indication of any that are threatened), and other significant ecological
features and processes.*

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it (e.g., to
what extent and by what methods are natural resources being exploited)?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property (one that meets at least one natural criterion and one
cultural criterion---see Section 3a just below for criteria)**

Briefly describe the property and list its major components. A summary
in a few paragraphs or pages is all that is required.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Which features or aspects of the property do you believe qualify it for
the World Heritage List?

What are the important present or proposed uses of the property and how
do they compare with the traditional or historic uses of it?

**2.b. History and Development of the Property**

*(select the one following category that best fits the property)*

**Cultural property**

When was the site built or first occupied and how did it arrive at its
present form and condition? If it has undergone significant changes in
use or physical alterations, include an explanation.

*Explanation: If the property was built in stages or if there have been
major changes, demolitions, abandonment and reoccupation, or rebuilding
since completion, briefly summarize these events. For archeological
sites, the names of archeologists and dates of their work should also be
noted, especially if the site is regarded as important in the history of
archeology as well as for its intrinsic merits.*

1\. Huffman Prairie Flying Field:

Not eager to continue their expensive and time-consuming treks to the
Atlantic coast of North Carolina for their experimental flights, in 1904
the Wright brothers searched the Dayton area for an appropriate test
field and identified Huffman Prairie as a promising location. They
arranged their use of it with its owner, Dayton banker Torrence Huffman.
The Wrights adapted the existing pasture, adding a small frame hangar in
1904. At this location they also developed a 9.1 m (30 feet) tall
launching derrick for a 726 kg (1,600 lb) weight that, when dropped,
launched the airplane from a track into the air to substitute for Kitty
Hawk's high sustained winds. The Wrights used their derrick system to
launch their airplanes until 1910, when they added wheels to their
models.

In 1905, the Wrights replaced their hangar of the previous year (moved
to an adjacent property, it became a livestock shelter and disappears
from the documentary record) with a similar (but slightly larger) frame
structure. The Wrights razed this hangar before 1910, when they built a
new wooden hangar near the intersection of the Yellow Springs and
Springfield pikes for the use of their Wright Aeroplane Company (a
modern replica of the 1905 hangar now stands near the site of the
original structure). After the 1913 Dayton flood, the Miami Conservancy
District constructed Huffman Dam, a dry dam across the Mad River
approximately 2 km (1.2 miles) to the south of the flying field, placing
the flying field within the dam's floodplain and making substantive
construction on it unwise. The Conservancy District razed the 1910
hangar -- also used by the Wright School of Aviation in 1910 -- in 1938.
The United States military acquired the Huffman Prairie Flying Field in
1917 as part of the creation of Wilbur Wright Field (initially used as a
site for pilot training during the First World War).

The U.S. military restricted public visitation to Huffman Prairie Flying
Field during most of the twentieth century. As part of Wright Field and
(after 1948) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Huffman Prairie Flying
Field served as the site of several temporary buildings housing airplane
navigational equipment; technological obsolescence caused the Air Force
to remove all such buildings during the early 1970s. The Secretary of
the Interior designated the field a National Historic Landmark in 1990,
and Congress made it a component of Dayton Aviation Heritage National
Historical Park in 1992, the same year that the Air Force installed
boundary markers and flags at the field's corners.

The terrain of the Huffman Prairie Flying Field has changed little since
the Wrights' testing of airplanes since it lies within the floodplain of
the Miami Conservancy District's Huffman Dam, a dry dam built by the
District between 1918 and 1921 across the Mad River to reduce the
possibility of future flooding after the catastrophic 1913 Dayton Flood.
Aside from the site's historic significance, its presence within the
dam's floodplain severely restricts the types of development that the
United States Air Force, the property owner, may undertake upon the
site.

2\. Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing:

Built for Abraham and Joseph Nicholas in 1886, the 22 South Williams
Street building was home to a grocery store, feed store, saloon, and
boarding house before its rental by Wilbur and Orville Wright from 1895
to 1897. After the Wrights moved their operations to 1127 West Third
Street in 1897, and before 1911, the owners of 22 South Williams Street
transformed their commercial structure into a residential duplex,
removing the original storefront and display windows and installing a
recessed exterior wall of novelty wood and bay windows in their stead.
They retained the original front columns from the building's west façade
for a porch and built a new access stairway to the second floor from the
porch. Bay windows replaced the north doorway and second-floor freight
door, and the modifiers removed all of the building's shutters and
painted the exterior walls white.

Individuals connected with Dayton nonprofit Aviation Trail, Inc.,
revealed the Wright brothers' connections to the 22 South Williams
Street building in 1980. With the building in poor physical condition
and facing imminent condemnation and removal by the City of Dayton,
Aviation Trail acquired title to the property in 1982. From 1985 to 1988
Aviation Trail supervised the property's rehabilitation to its 1895-1897
appearance, overseeing the replacement of the roof, paint and window
removal, removal of nonhistoric exterior features and interior
partitions, the reestablishment of historic doorways, and the
replication and installation of new shutters. Aviation Trail opened the
building as a public museum in 1988 and it became part of Dayton
Aviation Heritage National Historical Park in 1992. The National Park
Service acquired title to 22 South Williams Street in 1995 and installed
a new interior exhibit in 2004.

3\. Wright Flyer III/Wright Hall:

The Wrights took approximately one month (May to June) to build their
1905 airplane, using data acquired through their 1903 and 1904 test
flights to make the 1905 model more airworthy from the start of their
flying season. However, they continued to modify it as their flying
season progressed, enlarging and repositioning its rudder and elevator,
unlinking its previously-connected wing-warping and rudder controls, and
adding 'little jokers,' small angled surfaces to the trailing tips of
the two propellers to prevent a deformation problem observed during
flights in 1904. As a result of these changes (and also from additional
practice in flying), the Wrights, as pilots, gained greater control of
their airplane, enabling them to turn in the air and take off and land
when they desired. With their airplane now controllable, in 1905 they
set new world duration and distance records for controlled, powered
flight in a heavier-than-air craft.

Attempting to assure the secrecy of the design of the 1905 airplane
while pursuing a patent and while trying to sell the plane to
governments in North America and Europe, the Wrights did not fly in 1906
and 1907 and placed the 1905 Flyer in storage. After reaching agreements
with the United States Army's Signal Corps and a French syndicate in
1908, the Wrights brought the 1905 Flyer out of storage, installed
upright seating and controls for the pilot (in place of the original
prone piloting position) and a new control system and shipped the
airplane to Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. From 6 to 14 May, they made 22
flights with the 1905 flyer, including the first airplane flight in the
world with both a pilot and a passenger. After completing their tests at
Kitty Hawk that May, the Wrights disassembled the 1905 Flyer and
abandoned it in North Carolina. Orville returned to Kitty Hawk in 1911
to test a new glider model and considered returning to Dayton with the
components of the 1905 airplane, but found its pieces scattered by
animals and local souvenir hunters and decided instead to abandon the
1911 glider with its 1905 predecessor.

Shortly thereafter, Massachusetts paper manufacturer Zenas Crane wrote
the Wrights, asking them to donate an airplane to the Berkshire Museum
in Pittsfield. Orville responded that the Wrights had no intact airplane
to donate but that Crane was welcome to contact Kitty Hawk residents and
ask them to gather the scattered pieces of the 1905 airplane and 1911
glider for shipment to Massachusetts. Crane did so and acquired the 1911
glider and the wings, rudder, elevator, and miscellaneous pieces of wood
and wire from the 1905 airplane.

After Berkshire Museum craftsmen inadvertently destroyed the 1911 glider
by trying to rebuild it as the 1902 glider (as they did not have access
to sketches for the craft), Orville refused to assist Crane in
reconstructing the 1905 airplane or to send him its engine. Much of the
1905 airplane spent the next 35 years unassembled in Massachusetts;
residents of Kitty Hawk held other significant pieces as souvenirs.

In 1946, NCR Chairman Edward Deeds, a Dayton businessman and friend of
Orville's, requested that Orville donate a Wright Flyer to the outdoor
transportation museum Deeds intended to build in Dayton. Though he
initially recommended that Deeds commission the construction of a
replica of the 1903 Wright airplane, Orville reconsidered and suggested
instead that Deeds attempt to obtain the parts of the 1905 airplane and
rebuild it. Through the cooperation of Kitty Hawk residents who sent
airplane elements to Dayton and the Berkshire Museum (which by the 1940s
was an art and natural history museum with little interest in aviation),
Deeds and Orville obtained approximately 85 percent of the original 1905
parts and used 1905-period tools and methods to craft replicas of
missing parts. Deeds and Orville did not recover the airplane's original
muslin covering, but Orville supplied the restoration shop with
additional bolts of the "Pride of the West" bleached muslin (albeit
cloth first purchased in 1925, not 1905) of the same weight and weave
that the Wrights used in 1905. Deeds engaged Harvey Geyer, a former
Wright Company employee, to supervise the rebuilding and restoration of
the airplane; Orville maintained significant involvement in the
restoration project until his death in January of 1948. With the
reconstruction and restoration project complete, Deeds' Carillon Park
placed the 1905 Flyer on exhibit in purpose-built Wright Hall in 1950.
Wright Hall, a structure determined eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, is itself significant as a commemorative
structure built with the initial consultation of Orville Wright; it was
he who suggested that the 1905 airplane be exhibited in a shallow pit to
allow visitors to view it from above. Since 1950, Carillon Park has
publicly exhibited the Wright Flyer III in Wright Hall, an
environmentally-controlled museum facility now part of Dayton Aviation
Heritage National Historical Park.

4\. Hawthorn Hill:

Wilbur and Orville Wright submitted their initial design for Hawthorn
Hill to the Dayton architectural firm of Schenck and Williams in 1912.
After having professional architects revise the Wrights' ideas, local
contractors built the 2.5-storey brick mansion between 1912 and 1914.
Orville moved into the house with his father, Milton Wright, and sister,
Katharine Wright, in April of 1914. The house was Orville's residence
until his 1948 death; Milton Wright lived there until his 1917 death and
Katharine resided with Orville until her 1926 marriage to Henry Haskell.
The Wrights made no significant changes to Hawthorn Hill from its
construction to Orville's 1948 death and its sale. After its purchase of
the property that year, the private, Dayton-based National Cash Register
company redecorated much of the interior, painting stained surfaces,
changing carpets and furnishings, and replacing draperies and
chandeliers. However, all of the original decorative molding, pocket
doors, wainscoting, mantels, ornamental plaster and glass, silver- and
nickel-plated hardware, and the grand staircase remain intact, as do the
original furnishings and room treatments in Orville's library on the
first floor. NCR installed two additional second-floor bathrooms for its
guests to use when staying at Hawthorn Hill and installed a modern
heating and air-conditioning system; otherwise, the interior structure
of Hawthorn Hill has not changed since its 1914 completion.

*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_*

**Cultural landscape**

What have been the major aspects of the history of human activity in the
area and their impact on the landscape?

***\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_***

**Natural property**

What are the most significant events in history or prehistory that have
affected the property? How have humans used or affected it?

*Explanation: This discussion can include changes in the use of the
property and its natural resources for hunting, fishing or agriculture,
or changes brought about by climatic change, floods, earthquake or other
natural causes.*

***\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_***

**Mixed property**

Consider the questions raised just above for both natural and cultural
properties.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**2.c. Boundary Selection**

Propose a boundary for the property and explain why you chose it. Is the
boundary reasonable on logical grounds, such as if it conforms to
topography or landforms or (for natural areas) to the range of wildlife
or (for cultural properties) to any historical boundary or defining
structures (such as walls)?

The proposed boundary follows the respective boundaries of the
individual units of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park
and the boundaries of the Hawthorn Hill property owned by the Wright
Family Foundation (the respective sites' National Historic Landmark
boundaries), as shown on the accompanying maps. It conforms to relevant
historic property boundaries.

-   The boundary of Huffman Prairie Flying Field is the
    irregularly-shaped area shown on the accompanying maps 1, 4, and 6.
    It corresponds to the boundaries of field during its usage by the
    Wright brothers.

-   The boundary of Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing
    is that of lot 7794, City of Dayton, with the exception of 25 feet
    (7.62 m) taken by parallel lines off the south side thereof, as
    described in Warranty Deed 12235, recorded July 27, 1983, and shown
    on maps 1 and 5.

-   The boundary of the Wright Flyer III is that of the Wright Hall unit
    of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, in which the
    airplane is permanently exhibited in Wright Hall at Carillon Park,
    Dayton, Ohio. It is shown on maps 1 and 4.

-   The boundary of Hawthorn Hill encompasses part of lot 93, beginning
    at a point in the middle of Park Avenue 2.85 chains (57.3 m) from
    the west end of Park Avenue, thence south 8º50' east 458.2 feet
    (138.01 m) to a corner; thence north 85º50' east 458.2 feet
    (138.01 m) more or less to the west line of Harman Avenue to a
    corner; thence north on the west line of Park Avenue 456.72 feet
    (139.21 m) to the point of beginning, City of Oakwood, Ohio, as
    recorded in Executor's Deed on December 7, 1948. It is shown on map
    2.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are all the elements and features that are related to the site's
significance included inside the proposed boundaries?

*Explanation: Careful analysis should be undertaken to insure that the
proposal embraces the internationally significant resources and excludes
most, if not all, unrelated buildings, structures and features.*

YES: \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If no, please explain:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any enclaves or inholdings within the property and, if so, do
they contain uses or potential uses contrary to the conservation or
preservation of the site as a whole?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_\_

If yes, please explain:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**3. JUSTIFICATION FOR INSCRIPTION IN THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST**

**3.a. Criteria under which inscription is proposed**

From the World Heritage criteria listed below, identify each criterion
that you believe applies to your property and briefly state why you
believe each criterion you have selected is applicable.

*Explanation: You may find the discussion under this heading in
"Appendix A" to the **Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program** to be
helpful in completing this section. Please refer to a paper copy or
follow the hyperlink.*

*To be included on the World Heritage List, a site must be of
outstanding universal value and meet at least one of these ten selection
criteria in a global context:*

i.  *represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

ii. *exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of
    time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in
    architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or
    landscape design;*

> \_\_X\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing

Reason:

> Huffman Prairie Flying Field is the site where in 1904 and 1905 Wilbur
> and Orville Wright's research and development resulted in the
> invention of practical aviation through their construction of and
> experimental flights with the Wright Flyer III; it is the place where
> humanity learned to fly. The Wrights' development of practical
> aviation, sparked at Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright
> Printing, revolutionized international socioeconomic and political
> affairs and communications and brought increased exchanges of human
> values; through its grandeur, Orville Wright's home, Hawthorn Hill,
> symbolizes the swift development and the importance of aviation
> throughout the world.
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

iii. *bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural
     tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has
     disappeared;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

iv. *be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or
    technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a)
    significant stage(s) in human history;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

v.  *be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement,
    land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or
    cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when
    it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

vi. *be directly or tangibly associated with events or living
    traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary
    works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee
    considers that this criterion should preferably be used in
    conjunction with other criteria);*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

vii. *contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
     natural beauty and aesthetic importance;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

viii. *be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth\'s
      history, including the record of life, significant on-going
      geological processes in the development of landforms, or
      significant geomorphic or physiographic features;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

ix. *be outstanding examples representing significant on-going
    ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development
    of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and
    communities of plants and animals;*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

x.  *contain the most important and significant natural habitats for
    in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those
    containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from
    the point of view of science or conservation.*

> \_\_\_\_ This criterion applies to the property I am proposing
>
> Reason:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**3.b. Proposed statement of outstanding universal value**

Based on the criteria you have selected just above, provide a brief
**Proposed Statement of Outstanding Universal Value** summarizing and
making clear why you think the property merits inscription on the World
Heritage List. If adopted by the World Heritage Committee, the statement
"will be the key reference for the future effective protection and
management of the property."

*Explanation: This statement should clearly explain the
**internationally** significant values embodied by the property, **not**
its **national** prominence.*

*"**Outstanding Universal Value**" **is formally defined as "...
cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to
transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present
and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent
protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the
international community as a whole."***

**Cultural property**

*For example, a cultural World Heritage Site may be a unique survival of
a particular building form or settlement or an exceptional example of a
designed town or the best work by a great internationally recognized
architect. It may be a particularly fine or early or rich survival and
it may bear witness to a vanished culture or way of life, or ecosystem.
Elements to consider for inclusion in the statement may be such cardinal
facts about the site as:*

> *- Historic Context*
>
> *- Period of International Significance*
>
> *- Internationally Significant Dates*
>
> *- Internationally Significant Groups, Persons, Events*
>
> *- Cultural Affiliation*

This application may be said to include the largely intact site of the
world's first airfield and hangar; two intact buildings intimately
associated with the Wright brothers, and the Wright Flyer III (1905),
the world's first practical airplane, restored under the partial
supervision of Orville Wright and exhibited in a building designed
through consultations with him before his 1948 death.

Huffman Prairie Flying Field is the site where in 1904 and 1905 Wilbur
and Orville Wright's research and development resulted in the invention
of practical aviation through their construction of and experimental
flights with the Wright Flyer III; it is the place where humanity
learned to fly. The Wrights' development of practical aviation, sparked
at Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing, revolutionized
international socioeconomic and political affairs and communications and
brought increased exchanges of human values; through its grandeur,
Orville Wright's home, Hawthorn Hill, symbolizes the swift development
and the importance of aviation throughout the world.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Cultural landscapes**

*Such landscapes illustrate the evolution of human society and
settlement over time under the influence of the physical constraints
and/or opportunities presented by the natural environment and of
successive social, economic, and cultural forces, both external and
internal**.***

**Natural property**

*For example, a natural World Heritage Site may be a unique existence of
a type of habitat or ecosystem. It may comprise assemblages of
threatened endemic species, exceptional ecosystems, outstanding natural
landscapes or other natural phenomena.*

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property**

*A mixed property must be justified under at least one cultural
criterion (i-vi) under 3a above and one natural criterion (vii-x) under
3a above.*

***\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_***

**3.c. Comparison of proposed property to similar or related properties
(including state of preservation of similar properties)**

Please provide a statement explaining how the property being proposed
compares with all other similar or related properties anywhere in the
world, whether already on the World Heritage List or not.

*Explanation:* *Examples of questions that may be useful to consider
include whether the proposed property is part of a series or sequence of
similar sites belonging to the same cultural grouping and/or the same
period of history. Also, are there features that distinguish it from
other sites and suggest that it should be regarded as **more**,
**equally** or **jointly** worthy than they are? What is it that makes
this property intrinsically better than others and qualifies it for the
World Heritage List? For example, does it have more features, species or
habitats than a similar site? Is the property larger or better preserved
or more complete or less changed by later developments?*

*It will be especially helpful if specific reference can be made to a
study placing the property in a global context. The absence of
comparative information may indicate that the property is either truly
exceptional (a difficult case to prove) or that it lacks international
importance. If the results of the comparative review reveal that
multiple sites possess roughly comparable merit and may possess
international significance as a group, you may wish to recommend that
more than one site be proposed, as a serial nomination or as a joint
nomination by the United States and another country.*

*Also please make note of any major works that evaluate the property in
comparison to similar properties anywhere else in the world.*

Of the 830 properties on the World Heritage List in early 2007, few
address the history of technology and none address the world-changing
role of practical aviation in the twentieth century. Huffman Prairie
Flying Field and the related sites discussed in this application are
distinguished from other early aviation sites in the United States (such
as Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, the site of the Wrights' first four
flights, or the Indiana Dunes on the southern shore of Lake Michigan,
site of Octave Chanute's glider trials in 1896) or in Europe
(particularly France) in their status as the birthplace of international
practical heavier-than-air aviation through the development of flight
control. The test flights of the Wright brothers in 1904 and 1905,
during which they unlinked wing-warping and rudder controls, allowed a
pilot full, independent control of the elevator and rudder and the
consistent opportunity to make turns while airborne without stalling the
airplane's engine and to fly as long as the airplane's fuel supply
allowed.

While the Wrights' first four flights in a controlled, heavier-than-air
power-driven aircraft occurred at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, in
December of 1903, practical application of the principles of flight did
not occur until the Wrights started to use the Huffman Prairie Flying
Field near Dayton as their testing ground. The pasture, owned by local
banker Torrence Huffman, was the site of the first developmental
airfield for heavier-than-air aircraft in the United States and the
world.

The Wrights never tested their aircraft at the Indiana Dunes on the
shore of Lake Michigan. However, in 1896 Wright correspondent Octave
Chanute (1832-1910) tested gliders from dunes adjacent to the modern
boundary of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, a unit of the National
Park System. The dunes from which Chanute and his assistants launched
gliders no longer exist and are covered by modern roads and houses; the
site is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places and does
not retain integrity. The nearby Gary Bathing Beach Aquatorium (National
Register, 1994) contains a museum examining the significance of
Chanute's lakeshore experiments.

During the years of the Wrights' research and development at Huffman
Prairie Flying Field, 1904 and 1905, motorcycles and their engines were
the principal professional interests of future Wright competitor Glenn
Curtiss (1878-1930; the shoreline of his testing area, Hammondsport, New
York's Lake Keuka, retains some of its early twentieth-century
integrity). Samuel Langley (1834-1906), at the time the Secretary of the
Smithsonian Institution, also attempted to achieve sustained, controlled
flight with a heavier-than-air machine in December of 1903. Langley and
his assistants launched their unsuccessful tests from a houseboat
anchored in the Potomac River south of Washington, D.C.; while the
Potomac still flows past Quantico, no *in situ* vestiges of his
attempted flights remain.

Extant resources connected with early European aviators are few; British
aviation historian Charles Gibbs-Smith's *The Rebirth of European
Aviation, 1902-1908: A Study of the Wright Brothers' Influence* (London:
HMSO, 1974) provides excellent comparative context concerning
contemporary events in the United States and Europe. The first flight in
Europe, by Brazilian Alberto Santos-Dumont, occurred in October of 1906,
a year after the Wrights successfully flew their Wright Flyer III over
Huffman Prairie until exhausting its fuel in October of 1905. The site
of Santos-Dumont's 1906 60m (200 ft) flight in Bagatelle, France, is
today part of the Parc & Château de Bagatelle of Paris, which
principally contains an eighteenth-century French estate and formal
gardens. The flight is commemorated with a monument erected by the
Aero-Club de France in 1910, but the site lacks landscape integrity
concerning its aviation history; its landscape is managed as part of a
formal French garden estate. Santos-Dumont used the field at Bagatelle
for demonstrating his airplane; his (minimal) research and development
activities into heavier-than-air craft occurred at a workshop in
Neuilly, west of Paris. None of the French Centre des Monuments
Nationaux's *Monument historiques* commemorate France's role (or the
roles of others living in France) in the development of the airplane.

Aviation research and development elsewhere in Europe before Wilbur
Wright's demonstration flights in Le Mans, France, in 1908 (commemorated
by a 1920 monument) did not result in achievements comparable to those
of the Wrights at Huffman Prairie with the Wright Flyer III (or of
Santos-Dumont at Bagatelle). However, several European sites connected
with gliders important in the development of powered aviation still
retain integrity. Among those sites are locations connected with
Ferdinand Ferber's gliding (in Beuil, Conquet, and Chalais-Meudon,
France) and Lake Geneva, the site of tests of a float glider by the
Voisin brothers of France in September of 1905.

The landscape of the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, discussed in further
detail in *From Pasture to Runway: Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright
Patterson Air Force Base*, a 2002 National Park Service Cultural
Landscape Report, underwent moderate but reversible changes after it
served as the Wrights' testing ground; it retains a high level of its
historic integrity. It has high degrees of location, association,
feeling and setting, and a significant level of design integrity, with
intrusive features such as the bisecting Pylon Road easily removable.

Conversely, resources connected with the Wrights' experimental glider
and powered flights in North Carolina retain much less historic
integrity. In 1928 the U.S. Coast Guard and local residents planted
shrubs and sand grass in the sand dunes at Kill Devil Hill, where the
Wrights launched their first flights, adding a non-period vegetative
cover to the site while retarding the natural erosion and shifting of
the dune through wind and rain. A 1980 nomination of the Kill Devil Hill
site to the World Heritage Committee partially failed as a result of the
site's extensive landscape changes, including the complete
reconstruction of the Wrights' hangar and the presence of an intrusive
memorial structure. The cultural landscape of Kill Devil Hill is
examined in further detail in *Wright Brothers National Memorial:
Cultural Landscape Report*, a 2002 National Park Service study.

It is difficult to provide comparisons to the Wright Flyer III; as the
product through which the Wrights demonstrated their successful
development of practical aviation at the Huffman Prairie Flying Field
during the 1905 season it is a unique device. However, the evolution of
the Wrights' 1903 airplane from the Kitty Hawk flights to the 1904 Flyer
and then the 1905 model is well-documented, and the 1905 airplane is
comparable with its immediate Wright predecessors. Though all of the
Wrights' initial gliders and airplanes employed a basic Pratt truss
structure, their constant experimentation and incorporation of the
results of their experimentation resulted in many modifications to the
designs of their crafts. The Wrights' inability to substantially control
their 1903 airplane (now exhibited in Washington, D.C., by the
Smithsonian Institution at its National Air and Space Museum), which
flew only four times in straight flights of less than one minute in
length, caused many of the changes.

While they kept the general dimensions of the 1903 airplane, the
Wrights' research at Huffman Prairie in 1904 caused them to change the
airplane's center of gravity by moving the engine, radiator, fuel tank,
and pilot position slightly to the airplane's rear. They also changed
the wing spars from spruce to white pine, widened the airplane's
propeller blades and reduced the curvature ratio of the wings from 1 in
20 to 1 in 25. After these modifications made the 1904 airplane's pitch
nearly uncontrollable, they added 31.7 kg (70 lb) of ballast to its
forward elevator. The Wrights also developed a catapult launching system
so that they would be less reliant on the unpredictable Ohio wind when
attempting to launch their airplane. However, no flight in 1904 exceeded
six minutes in length, and the Wrights did not yet have an airplane they
could fly until exhausting its fuel supply. The Wrights burned the
wooden frame of the 1904 airplane and reused metal parts on the 1905
model and the 1904 airplane is not extant.

In 1905, the Wrights' experiments caused them to build an airplane 2.1 m
(7 ft) longer than their 12.3 m (40.4 ft) 1903 airplane. They reused the
1904 engine, added small, angled surfaces to the trailing edges of the
propellers ("little jokers") to offset deformation pressures, and
disconnected the direct linkage of the airplane's rudder and
wing-warping systems, enabling separate controls for yaw and roll and
overall control in three dimensions. Their most significant
modifications came during the middle of the 1905 season at Huffman
Prairie when, to try to maintain the pitch of the airplane and avoid
catastrophic crashes, they rebuilt and moved the forward elevator.
Previously 4.9 m² (52.75 ft²) in size, their experiments caused them to
change the elevator's size to 7.7 m² (83 ft²); it now was 3.6 m (11.7
ft) in front of the leading edge of the wing, instead of 2.2 m (7.32
ft). The extension of the elevator served the same purpose as did the
ballast on the elevator of the 1904 airplane. The modifications
completed in 1905 ended the series of hard, dangerous landings with
broken airplane parts that had affected the Wrights, and made long
flights commonplace for them and increased public interest in their
work.

At the same time, European (chiefly French) aviators -- principally
Ernest Archdeacon, Ferdinand Ferber, Charles and Gabriel Voisin, and
Louis Blériot -- produced only a few unsuccessful gliders and could not
repeatedly take off and land in a heavier-than-air craft; even Alberto
Santos-Dumont's 1906 14-bis airplane allowed control in only two
dimensions during its flights at Bagatelle. An April 1907 crash
destroyed the 14-bis; neither Santos-Dumont nor other interested parties
restored the aircraft for exhibition. European aviators quickly
incorporated the technological advances realized by the Wrights in the
Wright Flyer III at Huffman Prairie into their airplanes after the
Wrights' European demonstration flights in 1908 and 1909. The French
Musee de l'Air et de l'Espace at Le Bourget Airport near Paris exhibits
replicas of several important early European airplanes, including a
replica of Santos-Dumont's 1908 Demoiselle aircraft, a 1919 replica of
the Voisin Farman aircraft of 1907, and the original fuselage of Leon
Levavasseur's 1909 Antoinette. The Deutsches Museum in Munich displays a
1958 reproduction of Otto Lilienthal's 1896 glider, while the
Technisches Museum in Vienna has an authentic Lilienthal glider from
1892. Elsewhere, the Danmarks Tekniske Museum in Helsingør, Denmark,
claims a 1906 craft of early Danish aviator J.C.H. Ellehammer, while the
Romanian Muzeul Militar National in Bucharest claims a 1906 Trajan Vuia
monoplane amongst its collection.

The Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing building in
Dayton is the only intact structure in which the Wrights operated their
bicycle business still in its original location and is the location
where the Wrights first conceptualized their approach to achieving
practical flight. Few comparable extant resources connected with other
early aviation pioneers exist. In the United States, no buildings
connected with the aviation work of Octave Chanute, Samuel Langley or
Glenn Curtiss retain significant integrity (though several buildings
connected with Curtiss's 1925-1928 development of Opa-Locka, Florida,
are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the National
Register-listed Gary Bathing Beach Aquatorium commemorates Chanute's
nearby experiments on the beaches of Lake Michigan). Research uncovered
no French *Monuments historiques* commemorate early French aviators or
aviators of other countries working in France. In Petropolis, Brazil,
Alberto Santos-Dumont's home is a historic house museum but represents
his later life and not the period when he conceptualized his vision of
flight. In Anklam, Germany, the Otto Lilienthal Museum commemorates the
life of the town's native son; however, this museum does not include
buildings directly connected with the work or profession of the German
glider. Research found no other early aviation resources in Germany on
accessible lists of registered monuments maintained by the German
*Länder*.

Hawthorn Hill is the only intact residential structure connected with
Orville Wright (and, in its initial design phase, Wilbur Wright before
his 1912 death) as an adult. It reflects the socioeconomic status of
Orville Wright in the decades after his invention of the airplane and
his role as a senior figure in international aviation. It is best
compared with such properties as the General William ("Billy") Mitchell
House in Middleburg, Virginia or the Captain Edward V. Rickenbacker
House in Columbus, Ohio, both residences of famous U.S. military
aviators (and neither open for public visitation), or residences of
significant inventors, such as Samuel Colt's Armsmear in Connecticut
(now a retirement home for the elderly), or Henry Ford's Fair Lane home
(now owned by the University of Michigan-Dearborn and open for public
visitation). No residences of Glenn Curtiss remain intact.
Internationally, *A Encantada*, the home of Alberto Santos-Dumont built
in 1916 in Petropolis, Brazil, and principally connected with that
aviator's later life, is most comparable to Hawthorn Hill. It is
operated by the city of Petropolis as a historic house museum and is
open for public visitation and retains a high degree of its early
twentieth-century integrity. Research uncovered no residences of other
aviators active in Europe before 1908 that are preserved as tangible
connections to their residents of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**3.d. Integrity and/or Authenticity**

*Explanation: As with a site's international significance, the clear
intent of this requirement is that a World Heritage Site's authenticity
or integrity must rise to a superlative level. Thus, for example, it is
quite important to understand that reconstructions of historic
structures or sites or largely restored ecosystems will usually be
disqualified from inscription in the World Heritage List.*

**Cultural property**

[Authenticity]{.underline}: Does the property retain its original
design, materials, workmanship and setting?

YES: \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

[Integrity]{.underline}: Do the authentic material and spatial evidence
inside the proposed boundaries remain in sufficient quantity to convey
the full significance of the site? To tell the full story of why the
site is outstanding? Is the integrity weakened by the intrusion of
discordant and/or abundant elements or buildings that are unrelated to
the significance and detract from the visual unity of the place?

YES: \_\_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: "Yes" for all sites concerning the first two questions; "No" to
all sites concerning the third question.

Note that that there can be authenticity without integrity, as in a
highly eroded archaeological ruin. There can also be authenticity with
full integrity of materials, but seriously undermined by the
overwhelming presence of newer or inappropriate elements.

How do authenticity and integrity compare for this property?

The Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright Cycle Company and Wright and
Wright Printing, Wright Flyer III/Wright Hall, and Hawthorn Hill all
retain authenticity and integrity. As described in a site integrity
assessment in *From Pasture to Runway: Huffman Prairie Flying Field,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Cultural Landscape Report* (2002), the
Huffman Prairie Flying Field retains integrity of location, association,
feeling, and setting. It has not been relocated from its authentic,
historic boundaries (which it retains) and can be distinguished from its
contemporary settings. There is a direct link between the historic
events and persons with which the Flying Field is associated, and the
landscape expresses the aesthetic sense of its period of significance
due to the enduring historic views of the remaining open meadow and the
texture created by grassy vegetation, which also preserves its physical
setting. The Flying Field also retains much integrity of materials and
design; stone Flying Field boundary markers postdate the Wright era, and
the replica wooden 1905 hangar contains the same materials used by the
Wrights in their construction of the original structure. The open meadow
of the Flying Field no longer shows evidence of its alternate usage as a
cow pasture during the Wright era.

The Wright Flyer III retains integrity of design, being exhibited in the
same configuration as it was flown in 1905 and is the authentic airplane
flown that year. Though it is no longer located at the Huffman Prairie
Flying Field, Dayton History at Carillon Park exhibits the airplane in a
building designed with extensive contributions from Orville Wright
before his 1948 death. It has a medium to high level of integrity of
materials; it retains approximately 85% of its authentic 1905 structure.
It retains integrity of workmanship; even though the airplane was in
pieces for more than thirty years, Orville Wright initially oversaw its
1947-50 restoration before its exhibition at Carillon Park, and the
artisans who directly restored the plane used appropriate tools and
methods from the early twentieth century and the same type of spruce
wood as used in 1905. It also retains integrity of feeling, retaining
sufficient original material to provide viewers an excellent sense of
the period of time in which the Wrights built it. Orville Wright also
participated in designing Wright Hall; the display of the Wright Flyer
in Wright Hall has not changed since its installation after its
restoration in 1950.

Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing also retains most of
its Wright-era (1895-1897) exterior integrity. Its structure retains its
original bricks; its window treatments are modern reproductions based on
the building's appearance in an 1896 photograph (the only known visual
documentation of the building during its occupancy by the Wrights),
while the building also maintains integrity of time and place in its
setting and location in a west Dayton neighborhood (the West Third
Street National Register Historic District). It is the only authentic,
intact property still in its original location associated with the
Wrights' bicycle sales and manufacturing careers and one of two
authentic, intact buildings connected with their printing business. The
building's interior, now used by the National Park Service for a museum
and offices, underwent extensive modifications during the twentieth
century during a conversion from a commercial structure to a residential
duplex and from a residential duplex to a museum and office structure,
but the first floor retains its Wright-era flooring.

Hawthorn Hill also retains its Wright-era (1914-1948) integrity and is
the only authentic residence of Orville Wright as an adult still
standing. Aside from the addition of two small second-floor bathrooms to
accommodate NCR guests and improvements to the building's heating and
cooling systems, the interior structure is little changed from Orville
Wright's time and retains its original materials and fixtures. NCR
redecorated and repainted many of the rooms, but those changes are
reversible and do not affect the integrity of the structure itself.
Hawthorn Hill's exterior is maintained to its 1948 appearance. The yard
surrounding Hawthorn Hill, though not managed as a cultural landscape,
also maintains its period integrity, with dead plants being replaced
with plants of the same species, and the surrounding Oakwood
neighborhood retains its period residential character.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

[Repairs:]{.underline} If repairs have been made, were they carried out
using traditional materials and methods? If yes, please discuss. If not,
please explain the methods used and why.

YES: \_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: Resource-specific repairs to the Huffman Prairie Flying Field,
Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing, and Wright Flyer
III/Wright Hall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties and appropriate sections of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and generally accepted museum
object conservation standards. Reproductions of the 1905-era wire and
wood post fences surround Huffman Prairie Flying Field, and visitors
encounter a replica 1905 hangar structure. Replacement windows and doors
at the Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing building use
wood and glass replicating that seen in the sole surviving Wright-era
(1896) photograph of the structure, while the 1947-1950 repairs to the
Wright Flyer III -- initially supervised by Orville Wright -- used
muslin identical to that used in 1905 and the same type of spruce wood
used by the Wrights in the plane's original construction. Workers
repairing Hawthorn Hill over the past 90 years have used the same
materials used in the building's original construction.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Cultural landscapes:**

Authenticity: Does the property retain its distinctive character and
components?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Natural property**

Are there intrusions by non-native animals or plants and are there any
human activities that could compromise the property's condition?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If efforts are being made to conserve or restore a site or ecosystem,
what is their nature and are scientifically directed measures being
used? If the site comprises a unique ecosystem or habitat values, is the
area proposed of sufficient size and configuration to contain as
complete a representation of an ecosystem or habitat as is practicable
or reasonable?

Nature of conservation or restoration
measures:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Proposed area is sufficient:

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property**

Does the property's authenticity or integrity rise to a superlative
level?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**4. STATE OF PRESERVATION AND FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY**

**4.a. Present state of preservation of the property**

**Cultural property**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright
Printing, and Wright Flyer III/Wright Hall are preserved as part of
Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, which is a part of
the U.S. National Park System. Dayton Aviation Heritage National
Historical Park is governed by all U.S. laws and regulations pertaining
to the preservation of historic properties within the National Park
System, including the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites,
Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935, the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of
1979, and the park-specific Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of
1992, as amended. Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing is
on Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park's List of
Classified Structures. Additionally, all three properties are National
Historic Landmarks and subject to biennial condition reports submitted
to the National Park Service's National Historic Landmarks Program.
Though it is a National Historic Landmark, Hawthorn Hill is not a part
of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park and is not subject
to National Park Service-related law. All of the sites are part of the
National Aviation Heritage Area, which provides additional resource
awareness among the public, though no specific preservation measures.

All of the units of the proposed Dayton Aviation Sites nomination are in
good physical condition None face any imminent physical, environmental,
or structural threats.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed?

## There are no recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects for these properties, nor are there any major necessary repairs that have not been planned or financed.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Cultural landscapes:**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## Natural property

What is the present state of conservation of the property (including its
physical condition and conservation measures in place)?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there data on species trends or the integrity of ecosystems and are
there any on-going or planned interventions to restore natural
conditions (e.g., to restore altered topography or manage invasive
species and/or restore native ones)?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Mixed property**

What is the present state of preservation of the property (including its
physical condition and preservation measures in place)?

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any recent or forthcoming planned major repair projects? Are
there any major repairs needed to buildings or structures that have not
been planned or financed? Are there data on species trends or the
integrity of ecosystems and are there any on-going or planned
interventions to restore natural conditions (e.g., to restore altered
topography or manage invasive species and/or restore native ones)?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**4b. Factors affecting the property**

If there are known factors likely to affect or threaten the outstanding
universal values of the property or there any difficulties that may be
encountered in addressing such problems through measures taken, or
proposed to be taken, please use the following is a checklist to help in
identifying factors.

***(i) Development Pressures (e.g., encroachment, modification,
agriculture, mining)***

Are there development pressures affecting the property? Or major changes
in traditional land use? Or demographic shifts, especially in sites
still in the hands of the descendants of their creators, or, for
example, traditional ethnic communities.

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_X\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***(ii) Environmental pressures (e.g., pollution, climate change,
desertification)***

Are there major sources of environmental deterioration currently
affecting the property?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***(iii) Natural disasters and risk preparedness (earthquakes, floods,
fires, etc.)***

Are natural disasters likely to present a foreseeable threat to the
property? If so, are there available background data (e.g., for a
property in a seismic zone, give details of past seismic activity, or
the precise location of the property in relation to the seismic zone,
etc.)

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:

While the Huffman Prairie Flying Field lies within the floodplain of the
Mad River as a result of the construction of the Miami Conservancy
District's Huffman Dam, the dam is a dry dam and stores water on its
northern Huffman Prairie Flying Field side only during rare periods of
extended rainfall. Such situations are of minimal threat to the
integrity and authenticity of the Huffman Prairie Flying Field.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there contingency plans for dealing with disasters, whether by
physical protection measures or staff training?

YES: \_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:

-   Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park Emergency
    Procedures, July 2005 -- addresses procedures for handling building
    evacuations, bomb threats, earthquakes, emergency and non-emergency
    utility failures, fires, hazardous material spills, and tornados and
    other inclement weather within NPS-operated units of the national
    park. During emergencies at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, the
    U.S. Air Force bars public access to Huffman Prairie Flying Field.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***(iv) Visitor/tourism pressures***

If the property is open to visitors, is there an established or
estimated \"carrying capacity\" of the property? Can it absorb or
mitigate the current or an increased number of visitors without
significant adverse effects?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_X\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park does not have
established carrying capacities for its resources or units, nor does
Hawthorn Hill. The park's annual visitation of approximately 50,000
people spread among its four units (including the Paul Laurence Dunbar
State Memorial, which is not a party to this application) does not rise
to the level of affecting the carrying capacity of its resources; it can
likely absorb two to four times more visitors than it presently receives
but needs to conduct additional research to identify a precise carrying
capacity.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

***(v) Other***

Are there any other risks or threats that could jeopardize the
property's Outstanding Universal Values?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**5. PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT**

**5.a. Ownership**

Provide the name(s) and addresses of all owners:

Huffman Prairie Flying Field: United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio 45433

Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing: National Park
Service, Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, 16 South
Williams Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402

Wright Flyer III/Wright Hall: Dayton History, 1000 Carillon Boulevard,
Dayton, Ohio 45409

Hawthorn Hill: Wright Family Foundation, c/o Dayton Foundation, 2300
Kettering Tower, Dayton, Ohio 45423

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If any of these owners are corporations or other nongovernmental
entities, identify which are public and which private. Identify any
traditional or customary owners.

Public organization owners: United States Air Force (for Huffman Prairie
Flying Field); National Park Service (for Wright Cycle Company and
Wright and Wright Printing)

Private organization owners: Dayton History (for Wright Flyer III/Wright
Hall); Wright Family Foundation (for Hawthorn Hill)

Traditional or customary
owners:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If there are any other authorities with legal responsibility for
managing the property, provide their names and addresses:

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

For properties having multiple owners, is there any representative body
or agent which speaks for all owners? If so, does that representative
body or agent have authority to act on behalf of all the owners? If so,
provide the name and address of that representative body or agent:

The owners of the sites included in this application authorized the
superintendent of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park to
speak for the collective group regarding this application but did not
authorize him carte-blanche authority. No single property owner has the
authority to act on behalf of any other owner unless all of the owners
collectively allocate that permission.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any restrictions on public access to the property?

*Explanation: Public access is not required for inclusion in the World
Heritage List. Policies in effect should be explained, however. )*

YES: \_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: Units of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park are
open to the public during posted business hours. However, Huffman
Prairie Flying Field is occasionally closed by Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base officials for United States Air Force activities on the
surrounding base. The Wright Family Foundation intends to open Hawthorn
Hill for public visitation during the summer of 2007.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**5.b. Protective designations**

What are the principal existing (and pending) legal measures of
protection that apply to the property?

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline} copies of, all
relevant known or proposed legal, regulatory, contractual, planning,
institutional and/or traditional measures that affect the status of the
property: e.g., national park, wildlife refuge, historic monument,
zoning, easements, covenants, deed restrictions, State and local
historic preservation ordinances and regulations, and the like.*

List of measures:

-   Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992: Established
    Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park as a National Park
    Service unit, protecting Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright Cycle
    Company and Wright and Wright Printing, and Wright Flyer III/Wright
    Hall.

-   National Historic Preservation Act of 1966: This act established
    additional programs for the preservation of historic properties
    throughout the nation and establishes a system to classify
    properties on or eligible for inclusion on the National Register of
    Historic Places (and established the National Register). This act
    establishes that prior to approval of an undertaking that will
    adversely affect resources eligible for or listed in the National
    Register, the approving federal agency must evaluate the effects of
    the undertaking and afford the State Historic Preservation Officers
    and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to
    comment on the undertaking. The act also provides for reviews at the
    state and federal level. It was amended by P.L. 94-422 (Land and
    Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, to establish the
    National Historic Preservation Fund) to require the development of
    professional standards for preservation of historic properties,
    require the heads of all federal agencies to assume responsibility
    for the preservation of historic properties that they own or
    control, direct agencies to use historic properties, allow agencies
    to lease a historic property to ensure preservation, restructure the
    Advisory Council, and direct the Council to promulgate regulations
    for any exemption from requirements.

-   Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935: This act
    directs the secretary of Interior to carry out wide-ranging programs
    in the field of history and places with the secretary the
    responsibility for national leadership in the field of historic
    preservation. It authorizes the Historic American Buildings Survey,
    Historic American Engineering Record, and National Survey of
    Historic Sites and Buildings.

-   Antiquities Act of 1906: This act provides for the protection of
    historic or prehistoric remains and sites of scientific value on
    federal lands, establishes criminal sanctions for unauthorized
    destruction or removal of antiquities, authorizes the president to
    establish national monuments by proclamation, and authorizes the
    scientific investigation of antiquities on federal lands, subject to
    permit and regulations. Passage of the Archeological Resources
    Protection Act (1979) supersedes the Antiquities Act as an
    alternative federal tool for prosecution of antiquities violations
    in NPS areas.

-   Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979: This act secures
    the protection of archeological resources on public or Indian lands
    by regulating the excavation and collection of resources and
    fostering increased cooperation and exchange of information between
    private, governmental, and professional communities. The act defines
    archeological resources to be any material remains of past human
    life or activities that are of archeological interest and are at
    least 100 years old. It also requires the notification of Indian
    tribes prior to issuing permits for activities at sites which may be
    of religious or cultural importance to them.

-   National Park Service Act of 1916: Established the National Park
    Service as an agency within the Department of the Interior, giving
    it responsibility for managing national parks within the United
    States.

-   National Historic Landmark Listing, Huffman Prairie Flying Field,
    1990: Designated Huffman Prairie Flying Field as an NHL, requiring
    that before approval of any federal undertaking which may directly
    and adversely affect the NHL, the head of the responsible federal
    agency shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such
    planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL
    and shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a
    reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. It also
    requires the NPS to periodically report the NHL's condition to
    Congress.

-   Memorandum of Agreement 508 between Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
    and Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, National Park
    Service, 2005: Establishes an agreement between WPAFB and the NPS to
    establish roles, responsibilities, and guidelines regarding
    operation and support of the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, with the
    NPS responsible for site interpretation and the U.S. Air Force
    responsible for ensuring that undertakings comply with Section 106
    of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

-   National Historic Landmark Listing, Wright Cycle Company and Wright
    and Wright Printing, 1990: Designated Wright Cycle Company and
    Wright and Wright Printing an NHL, requiring that before approval of
    any federal undertaking which may directly and adversely affect the
    NHL, the head of the responsible federal agency shall, to the
    maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions as may
    be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL and shall afford the
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity
    to comment on the undertaking. It also requires the NPS to
    periodically report the NHL's condition to Congress.

-   National Historic Landmark Listing, Wright Flyer III, 1990:
    Designated Wright Flyer III as an NHL, requiring that before
    approval of any federal undertaking which may directly and adversely
    affect the NHL, the head of the responsible federal agency shall, to
    the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions as
    may be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL and shall afford the
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity
    to comment on the undertaking. It also requires the NPS to
    periodically report the NHL's condition to Congress.

-   National Historic Landmark Listing, Hawthorn Hill, 1991: Designated
    Hawthorn Hill as an NHL, requiring that before approval of any
    federal undertaking which may directly and adversely affect the NHL,
    the head of the responsible federal agency shall, to the maximum
    extent possible, undertake such planning and actions as may be
    necessary to minimize harm to the NHL and shall afford the Advisory
    Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment
    on the undertaking. It also requires the NPS to periodically report
    the NHL's condition to Congress.

-   City of Dayton Zoning Ordinance, rev. October 2006: Documents the
    ways in which land may be used within the City of Dayton (affecting
    Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing and Wright Flyer
    III/Wright Hall); Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright
    Printing is within an area zoned multiple-family residential and
    borders an area zoned as a historic district; Carillon Park, the
    location of Wright Flyer III/Wright Hall, is zoned as open space.

-   Wright-Dunbar Village Business District Design Guidelines, 2002:
    These guidelines establish standards for exterior renovations
    occurring within the Wright-Dunbar Village Business District and
    supplement the *Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic
    Rehabilitation*; the guidelines affect Wright Cycle Company and
    Wright and Wright Printing.

-   City of Oakwood Zoning Ordinance, 2000: Documents the ways in which
    land may be used within the City of Oakwood (affecting Hawthorn
    Hill); Hawthorn Hill is within an area zoned as a single-family
    residence district.

-   West Third Street Historic District, National Register of Historic
    Places, 1989: Added the West Third Street to the National Register
    of Historic Places, increasing public awareness of the area
    surrounding the Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing
    property and informally enhancing its future preservation.

-   West Third Street Historic District, City of Dayton, 2000: Defines
    the West Third Street Historic District (including the Wright Cycle
    Company and Wright and Wright Printing Property) as a unit under the
    City of Dayton's zoning code.

Give the title and date of legal instruments and briefly summarize their
main provisions. Provide the year of designation and the legislative
act(s) under which the status is provided.

Titles, dates, and brief summaries of legal instruments:

-   Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992: Created Dayton
    Aviation Heritage National Historical Park as a unit of the National
    Park System from the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright Cycle
    Company and Wright and Wright Printing, Wright Flyer III/Wright
    Hall, and the Paul Laurence Dunbar State Memorial.

-   Hawthorn Hill: Deed 06-078740, 25 August 2006 -- transferred
    ownership of Hawthorn Hill from the National Cash Register Company
    to the Wright Family Foundation.

Are the protections in perpetuity or are there potential gaps in the
protection?

YES: \_\_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment: Protections for the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright Cycle
Company and Wright and Wright Printing, and Wright Flyer III exist in
perpetuity. Legislation to develop perpetual legal protection for
Hawthorn Hill by adding it to Dayton Aviation Heritage National
Historical Park is currently under development by the Aviation Heritage
Foundation and the Wright Family for submission to Congress.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Are there any traditional ways in which custom safeguards the property?

YES: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**5.c. Means of implementing protective measures**

Will the owner(s) be responsible for ensuring that the nominated
property will be protected in perpetuity, whether by traditional and/or
statutory agencies? If no, identify who will be responsible.

YES: \_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Responsible entity other than the owner:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

What is the adequacy of resources available for this purpose? Please
briefly explain your reasoning.

Adequate resources are available for the foreseeable future for the
Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright
Printing, Wright Flyer III, and Hawthorn Hill. The National Park Service
directly funds the perpetual protection of Wright Cycle Company and
Wright and Wright Printing through its annual Operations of the National
Park System appropriation to Dayton Aviation Heritage National
Historical Park. Through the annual appropriation provided the
Department of Defense, the U.S. Air Force funds the perpetual protection
of the Huffman Prairie Flying Field; it also maintains a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA-508) with the National Park Service describing its duties
towards site preservation. Resources for the preservation of the Wright
Flyer III, owned by the private nonprofit Dayton History, come from
Dayton History's general budget, which in turn is reliant on the Deeds
Trust (administered by the Dayton Foundation), individual memberships,
and museum admissions for its funding. Funding for the Wright Family
Foundation comes from fees charged licensees for commercial use of the
Wright brothers' names and images; ensuring the continued preservation
of Hawthorn Hill is the Foundation's principal activity.

**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**5.d. Existing plans related to municipality and region in which the
proposed property is located (e.g., regional or local plan, conservation
plan, tourism development plan)**

*Explanation: List, [but do not attach]{.underline}, plans of which you
are aware that have been officially adopted or are currently under
development by governmental or other agencies that you believe directly
influence the way the property is developed, conserved, used or visited.
Include the dates and agencies responsible for their preparation and
describe their general nature, including whether they have the force of
law. It is recognized that this information may be difficult to compile
and that it may be difficult to decide what to include, but the
information will be very useful in determining how well the property is
protected.*

-   CitiPlan Dayton: The 20/20 Vision (Comprehensive Plan), City of
    Dayton, 1999/revised 2003 (City of Dayton Department of Planning and
    Community Development): While it does not specifically mention the
    Wright Flyer III or Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright
    Printing, this comprehensive plan will be used by the City
    Commission and City Administration to set policy direction,
    establish service priorities (as the basis of the budget process)
    and act as a guideline for land use and zoning decisions within the
    city of Dayton (in which two of the components of the proposed World
    Heritage listing lie) and updates to its zoning code. CitiPlan 20/20
    also gives the Commission and Administration a road map for working
    with neighboring jurisdictions and other public and private
    organizations.

-   Comprehensive Plan, City of Oakwood, 2004: Oakwood's official policy
    guide for physical improvement and development. It considers not
    only the immediate needs of the community, but also projects
    improvement and development 10 to 15 years into the future. While
    the plan does not address Hawthorn Hill directly, it focuses on the
    needs of a "mature" community and strives to maintain and enhance
    the traditional form, character, and distinguishing features of
    Oakwood, while still promoting high-quality and compatible
    improvements and new developments in selected locations.

-   National Aviation Heritage Area Draft General Management Plan,
    January 2007: addresses the protection, enhancement, and
    interpretation of the natural, cultural, historic, scenic, and
    recreational resources for the entire National Aviation Heritage
    Area (of which the Huffman Prairie Flying Field, Wright Cycle
    Company and Wright and Wright Printing, Wright Flyer III, and
    Hawthorn Hill are components), established as a National Heritage
    Area in 2004. Aviation Heritage Foundation managers expect the
    finalization of the plan by July of 2007. This plan does not have
    the force of law.

-   Wright-Patterson Air Force Base General Plan: Provides guidance for
    the operations of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base; includes a
    section concerning the operation of the Huffman Prairie Flying Field
    and Air Force collaboration with the National Park Service,
    elaborating on Air Force responsibilities for site maintenance and
    preservation and NPS responsibilities for site interpretation.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**5.e. Property management plan or other management system**

Is there a formal management plan or other management system for the
property? If yes, when was it last updated? If not, is one in
preparation and when will it be completed? (*It is not necessary to
provide copies, but a summary can be included if one is available.)*

YES: \_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:

-   Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park General Management
    Plan, 1997/amended 2007. According to alternative C, the NPS's
    preferred plan alternative, workers would construct a new access
    gate to Huffman Prairie Flying Field, easing visitor circulation
    between it and the nearby Huffman Prairie Flying Field Interpretive
    Center; a kiosk for increased interpretation and a hangar for a
    replica Wright B airplane would be built near (but not on) the
    Huffman Prairie Flying Field. Management of the Wright Flyer III
    would continue to reside with Dayton History as a legislated park
    partner, with the NPS providing technical assistance, while the NPS
    would maintain ownership and interpretation of Wright Cycle Company
    and Wright and Wright Printing. Since Hawthorn Hill is not a
    component of Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, the
    GMP does not address its management.

> The Wright Family Foundation, which gained ownership of Hawthorn Hill
> in August of 2006, is evaluating management alternatives and has not
> yet established a management plan for that site.
>
> \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Is this management plan or other management system being effectively
implemented?

YES: \_X\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ NO: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Comment:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**6. MONITORING**

*Because monitoring the condition of a property is not essential to a
decision as to whether a property meets the basic qualifications for
nomination to the World Heritage List, no information about the
property's monitoring program is being requested at this time. If the
property is subsequently added to the U.S. Tentative List, a set of key
indicators for assessing the property's condition, the arrangements for
monitoring it, and information on the results of past monitoring
exercises will be required to complete the l nomination of the property
for inscription on the World Heritage List,.*

**7. DOCUMENTATION**

**7.a Photographs, slides, and other audiovisual materials**

If recent images (prints, slides and/or, where possible, electronically
formatted images, videos and aerial photographs) are available that give
a good general picture of the property, please provide a few photographs
and/or slides. If available, film/video, or electronic images may also
be provided. They should give a good general picture of the property and
illustrate the qualities/features that you believe justify the
nomination of the property to the World Heritage List. (Ten views or so
should be adequate for all but the most complicated properties.)

Please label the images you supply and provide a separate list of them
here, including the photographer's name. Please do not include any
copyrighted images or other images to which you do not possess the
rights or do not have permission.

Images being supplied and names of their authors:

1\. Huffman Prairie Flying Field, January 2007 (National Park Service;
"Photo 1")

2\. Huffman Prairie Flying Field, January 2007 (National Park Service;
"Photo 2")

3\. Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing, December 2006
(National Park Service; "Photo 3")

4\. Wright Cycle Company and Wright and Wright Printing, December 2006
(National Park Service; "Photo 4")

5\. Wright Flyer III, October 2002 (Carillon Historical Park; "Photo 5")

6\. Hawthorn Hill, June 2003 (National Park Service; "Photo 6")

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**8. CONTACT INFORMATION**

**8.a. Preparer/Responsible Party for Contact:**

**Name: Edward Roach**

**Title: Historian**

**Address: Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, P.O. Box
9280**

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code: Dayton, Ohio 45409**

**Telephone: 937 225 7705**

**Cellular phone: 937 673 8691**

**Preferred Days/Hours for Contact: M-F, 8:00-3:30**

**Fax: 937 222 4512**

**E-mail and/or website: edward_roach@nps.gov**

**8.b. Responsible Official or Local Institution/Agency**

If different from the preparer above, provide the same information for
the agency, museum, institution, community or manager locally
responsible for the management of the property. In the case of public
property, identify both the responsible official and the agency. If the
normal reporting institution is a national agency, please also provide
that contact information.

**Name: Lawrence Blake**

**Title: Superintendent**

**Address: National Park Service, Dayton Aviation Heritage National
Historical Park, P.O. Box 9280**

**City, State/Territory, Zip Code: Dayton, Ohio 45409**

**Telephone: 937 225 7705**

**Cellular phone: 937 287 1424**

**Fax: 937 225 7706**

**E-mail and/or website: lawrence_blake@nps.gov**

**9. Signatures of All Owners of Private Properties or Authorizing
Officials for Public Properties:**

**Explanation: No property will be included in the U.S. World Heritage
Tentative List without the written concurrence of all its property
owners. This is because U.S. law expressly forbids nomination of such
sites. In addition, at the time of nomination, property owners must
pledge to the legal protection or the development of legal protection of
the property in perpetuity.**

DIRECTORS OF THE WRIGHT FAMILY FOUNDATION

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Stephen Wright Date

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Amanda Wright Lane Date

THE DAYTON FOUNDATION PLUS REALTY TWO, LLC,

an Ohio limited liability company

By:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Michael M. Parks Date

President of Dayton Foundation Plus, Inc., its sole member

(Please attach as many additional signature pages as may be necessary.)

**9. Signatures of All Owners of Private Properties or Authorizing
Officials for Public Properties:**

**Explanation: No property will be included in the U.S. World Heritage
Tentative List without the written concurrence of all its property
owners. This is because U.S. law expressly forbids nomination of such
sites. In addition, at the time of nomination, property owners must
pledge to the legal protection or the development of legal protection of
the property in perpetuity.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Signature**

Mary A. Bomar

**Typed or Printed Name**

[Director, National Park Service]{.underline}
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Title**

**Date**

(Please attach as many additional signature pages as may be necessary.)

**9. Signatures of All Owners of Private Properties or Authorizing
Officials for Public Properties:**

**Explanation: No property will be included in the U.S. World Heritage
Tentative List without the written concurrence of all its property
owners. This is because U.S. law expressly forbids nomination of such
sites. In addition, at the time of nomination, property owners must
pledge to the legal protection or the development of legal protection of
the property in perpetuity.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Signature**

Brady Kress

**Typed or Printed Name**

[President and Chief Executive Officer, Dayton
History]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Title**

**Date**

(Please attach as many additional signature pages as may be necessary.)

**9. Signatures of All Owners of Private Properties or Authorizing
Officials for Public Properties:**

**Explanation: No property will be included in the U.S. World Heritage
Tentative List without the written concurrence of all its property
owners. This is because U.S. law expressly forbids nomination of such
sites. In addition, at the time of nomination, property owners must
pledge to the legal protection or the development of legal protection of
the property in perpetuity.**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Signature**

**Typed or Printed Name**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Title**

**Date**

(Please attach as many additional signature pages as may be necessary.)