Balancing Historic Preservation with Needs of Scientific Facilities.Pdf

Balancing Historic Presewalion Needs with the Operation of Highly Technical or Scientific Facilities The grandscale ofAmerica's historic scientificfacilifies and equipment is in keeping with their enomlous contribubulions fo the Nation's technological development. Or1 the cover, a model of the Mercury capsule undergoes aerodynamic festirlg in the full scale tunnel at NASA's Longley Research Center. The Natio~lalHistoric Landmark wind turlrlel dwds a foreground observer in this 1959phofograph. Above, an astrorromsr sits in fheprime focus observingposition atop the 20&inch Hale Telescope at the Mount Palomar Observatory, yet the seemingly more hurnarl scale of thisphotograph is deceptive. The detailed diagant of t11etelescope s11ow1101tthe overleafpzttsr?lan intoperspective. Balancing Historic Preservation Needs with the Operation of Highly Technical or Scientific Facilities

A report to the US.HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIFS, SUBCOMMIlTEE ONNATIONAL PARKSAND PUBLICLANDS, and the COMMIlTEE ONSCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

Advkoiy Council on Historic Preservation

1100 Penr~sylvaniaAvenue, NK, Suite 809, Washington,D.C. 20004 February 1991 ADVISORY COUNClL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Foreword

NEARLY TWENTY-FIVE YEARS following passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, one might argue that the preservation community is stretching the frontiers of traditional historic preservation interests and involvement. We are entering a period that marks fifty years since the beginning of World War I1 and its aftermath. The 1940s and 1950s marked a period of unprecedented national growth and development in urbanization, residential and commercial construction, scientific and technological development, and national infrastructure. The Nation's historic preservation policy was a response to those developments and their effects on America's historic resources. In the near future, however, the products of those developments will be the historic resources. Already, significant national achievements in science, space exploration, and many other arenas of human endeavor are being recognized for their historic value. Others will follow. The preservation of our scientific heritage, the discoveries we as a country of innovators and inventors have pioneered, and our physical record of scientific research are all essential to give the proper understanding of "who we are" as a Nation. In particular, the opportunity to inspire and guide the younger generation of Americans is an opportunity we ought not to sacrifice. I believe this report addresses a variety of measures that can be taken, short of legislative exceptions, to minimize the fears of cost, delay, and interference with the scientific research process that some members of the scientific community believe are necessary when they are asked to participate actively in the preservation of their own past for our common benefit. It is incumbent upon all of us to work together to protect and enhance this legacy as we move forward into the twenty-first century.

John F.W. Rogers Chairman

ADVlSORY COUNCIL ON EIISTORIC PRESERVATION Table of Contents

Foreword ...... v Chapter 3 Chapter 5 Table of Contents ...... vi Areas of tension behveen The process and result of past Executive Summary ...... ix scientific research/technological interaction behveen science 7lte analysisfinds in brief ....x facility operation and the and technology and Federal Highlights of the Federal historic preservation historic preservation recommendations: ...... x program ...... 19 statutes ...... 34 The Issues ...... 19 Existing agency programs Summary...... 25 for historic preservation . 41 Chapter 1 Section 106 cases at science Introduction ...... 1 and technology facilities . . 36 Congressional request ...... l Chapter 4 NASA case study examples . 41 Background to congressional The historic significance of The regulatory implications interest ...... 3 scientific and technological of "historic" designation . . 46 Focus of the study ...... 4 facilities ...... 27 Summary Discussion ...... 47 Study methodology ...... 5 Why scientific and Alternatives toproposed O~~erallapproach ...... 5 technological facilities are actions ...... 47 Solicitation ofpublic historically important: Effects of modifications on comments ...... 5 criteria of significance ... 27 historic facilities ...... 48 Scientific and technological Backgrour~d...... 27 The timing of historic facilities visited ...... 6 7'he National Register of preservation review...... 48 Participation by scientists and Historic Places and National The "public"nature of the rrlanagers, and the Historic Landmarks ..... 28 Section 106process ...... 49 preservation community ... .6 The process of identification The costs of historic Report organization ...... 7 and evaluation...... 29 preservatior~ ...... 49 Application of the criteria in practice ...... 30 Chapter 2 7'he historic significance of Chapter 6 A context for analysis: Federal scier~tificand technological hservation/facility mission support of science and technol- facilities ...... 30 options available to achieve ogy and the Federal historic 7'he age of the facility or its balance ...... 51 preservation program ...... 8 equipment ...... 31 Range of agency programs Representativeness versus the Overview ...... 8 to protect and enhance Federal support of science uniqueness of the facility, historic properties ...... 52 and technology ...... 10 stnrchlre, or object ...... 32 Identificatior~artd The Federal historic The 'integngnty"of the resource, maintenance of historic preservation program ....ll in terms of the amount of scientific and technological Yerkes Obsematory, a federally original historicfabric, properties ...... 52 suppoiTed research facility .I2 material, or equipment Institutional histories Section 106...... 15 still &ant andlor in use . . 32 and the popularpress .... 52 Section 110 ...... I6 Conduct of the evaluation, Public information centers, Juxtaposition: public policy includirzg the qualifications museums and displays ... 53 and the Federal of the evaluator arrdpersons Measures to mitigate the Government's stewardship corlsulted during the effect of mission needs-on role ...... 16 evaluation ...... 33 historic properties ...... 54 Rartge of n~itigntion measirres ...... 54 Problems in implementation 55

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION Chapter 7 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 57 Conclusions ...... 57 Recommendations ...... 62 Notes ...... 79

Tables I: Summary of major existing high tech agency historic preservation programs ...36 2: Agency history and archives offices ...... 37 3: Principal Section 106 cases involving scientific and technical facilities, 1970-1990 ...... 38 A. Facilities management. ...38 B. firdividual projects ...... 38

Appendices I: Report preparation and acknowledgments ...... 67 Pl~otocredits ...... 68 2: Congressional letter requesting the analysis ...69 3: Programmatic Agreement among NASA, NCSHPO, and the Advisory Council for management of NASA's National Historic Landmarks ...... 71 4: Cooperative agreement between NASA and the Smithsonian Institution for the curation of historic equipment ...... 76

N)VISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 7he space shuttle liffsoff from Lmrnch Complex 39 at Kennedy Space Center, one of NASA's historicpropeeies that is listed on the Nalional Register for its role in the lunar landings. 7he compler has been modifiedfor shuttle operations. On the overleaf; Marshall Space Flight Center's NHL necclral buoyancy simulator, constn~ctedin 1955 to lrain astronauts to work in a weightless environment, also remains in use. In this 1979photograph, sccr~badivers keep a watchful eye.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION physical environment that

NHPA. They are obligate their operations, to consid The central issue discus

What is the appropriate balance bet

fect historic properties through destro

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL ON IlISTORlC PRESERVATION

CHAFER 1: Introduction

As requested by Congress on September 20, 1989,the Ad- visory Council on Historic Preservation undertook an analysis of problems, or potential problems, associated with the designation of scientific research institutions as historically significant for their role in scientific and technological advancement. Of concern was how a balance could be struck between the preservation of physical reminders of the scientific legacy of the United States and the ongoing operation and continual need to upgrade scientific and technical research facilities. Congress requested that the Council focus on properties identified by the National Park Service (NPS) as nationally significant under the "Man in Space" and "Astronomy and Astrophysics" National Historic Landmark (NHL) theme studies. It also asked the Council to suaaest how Federal agencies managing or all work was accomplished providing assistance to such Congressional request facilities could best meet the re- within the Council's normal quirements of Sections 106 and Operating budget. re- The September 20, 1989,letter. 110 of the National Historic quested that the report be com- conveying the joint request from Preservation Act (NHPA) and pleted by September 30, 1990. the House of Representatives, Council regulations, "Protection In Order to complete review of Subcommittee on National 136 the report by the Council at its of Historic Propertiesu cFR Parks and Public Lands of the 8001. October 17, 1990,quarterly Part Committee on Interior and In- No additional funding was meeting, an extension was sular Affairs, and the Committee provided to conduct this study; granted until October 31, 1990. on Science. Space, and Tech-

77le range of lrisforicscientificproperties is vast, as is the range ofpreservation options: the origirtal Thomas Edison laboratory, left, is now a national historic sile. Even more challengingfrom apresewation standpoi~ttarepropeflies such as Cape Cattaveral's numerous larlrtch compleres, ma~ryof which are still in use.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISrORIC PRESERVATION BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

nology, asked the Council to conduct a comprehensive analysis that would include, but not be limited to, the following issues: ways to balance the needs of historic preservation and facility operation at highly technological and/or scientific facilities; Impediments to achieving such a balance, such as time delays and security concerns and approaches to minimize such impediments; and UProcedures to ensure that both historic preservation and scientific/technological communities continue to assist each other in the development and execution of agreements that fulfill the respective needs of historic preservation and facility operation.

The Committees specified that preparation of the analysis must include the active participation of the Federal agencies and their grantees and contractors, as well as the historic presewation community and active scientists and managers. The Council focused on the properties identified in the two NHL theme studies, "Man in Space" and "Astronomy and Astrophysics." Other historic operational facilities, as well as recognized or eligible historic properties located at or wlhin operational facilities, were included in the analysis as appropriate. In all cases the study emphasized active, as opposed to inactive, facilities.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HlSTONC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 3

nels, to one of the Saturn V rock- for a discussion of the Section Background to ets. A partial list of these proper- 106 process.) congressional interest ties and others can be found at Negotiations leading to the page 75 of this report. PA were lengthy and difficult. In the mid-1980s. NPS studied Agency objections were NASA was concerned that com- properties instrumental to the made to the "Man in Space" pliance with NHPA must not in- United States' placement of a designations on the grounds terfere with cost-effective and man on the moon. Based on that (1) research leading to the timely execution of its primary this study, 25 properties owned designations was incomplete or mission. Many preservationists, by the National Aeronautics and inaccurate, and (2) such desig- on the other hand, felt that Space Administration (NASA), nations would place additional NASA had a strong obligation to the Air Force (USAF), the Army demands on money, man- preserve the physical manifesta- (Army), and the Smithsonian In- power, and time, and impede tions of its scientific achieve- stitution (SI), including facilities, respective agency missions. ments and that this structures, and objects of space As a result of these objec- responsibility currently was not hardware, were determined to tions, discussions began be- adequately acknowledged. The hold national historic sig- tween NASA and the Council on Council sought a middle ground nificance for their role in that a Programmatic Agreement that would allow NASA to go for- achievement. NHL facilities (PA) in order to comprehensive- ward with its mission while still range from Cape Canaveral ly address NASA's respon- discharging its statutory respon- rocket-launch pads to rocket-en- sibilities under Sections 106 and sibilities under NHPA. gine test stands, to wind tun- 110 of NHPA. (See Chapter 2

Twenty-five NASA-ownedproperties, including this Saturn Vrocket engine test stand, lefl, at the MarshaN Space Flight Center, have been designated as National Historic Landmarks, the Nation's highest lartdmark designation. An entire& different kind of techno/ogi'ca/&significant historic property is W~te~/ietA~en~~I'sBuilding 135. Bzrilt duriqq World War II, it is still used for the manufacture of la~egun barrels. 4 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

During the consultation History Areas Committee, tes- process preceding the PA, timony was heard from the Na- Focus of the study NASA requested a legislative ex- tional Science Foundation emption from compliance with (NSF) and the targeted institu- Given the conflicting needs and NHPA. As pan of a negotiated tions that argued against NHL breadth of issues concerning compromise involving repre- designation. historic preservation and the sentatives of NASA, the Council, Eventually, these objections operation of scientific and tech- the Office of Management and reached Congress. One result nological facilities, the Council Budget (OMB), and the staffs of was the amendment to the has focused this study on both House committees, on Council's appropriation bill, properties of historic sig- September 18, 1989, Council described above. A second nificance that are also either (1) Chairman John F. W. Rogers ex- result was the joint congres- active "pure" or "applied" re- ecuted a PA among the Council, sional committee request to the search facilities carrying out es- NASA, and the National Con- Council for the conduct of this sential, often state-of-the-art, ference of State Historic Preser- study. A third result was a con- research and development; or vation Officers (NCSHPO) for gressional request to NPS, (2) active 'Trontline" operational the management and operation made at the same time as the re- facilities engaged in programs of facilities designated by NPS quest to the Council, to supporting scientific or defense- as NHLs. suspend further action on pos- related mission^.^ Federal in- In the closing days of Fiscal sible NHL designations for six stallations and nonprofit public Year 1989, however, a provision months. NPS agreed. Eventual- academic institutions receiving was inserted into the Council's ly, NPS determined that it would some form of direct Federal FY 1990 appropriations which not revisit this issue pending grant support for their activities barred it from expending funds completion of the Council's have been emphasized over to comment on undertakings at study. On December 20, 1989, privately owned and managed facilities engaged in scientific the Secretary of the Interior did, corporate facilities engaged in and technical research and however, designate seven Federal contract work for profit. development under Federal con- properties to which no objec- With the exception of several ex- tracts or grants.' tions had been raised (none are amples for comparative pur- This provision was the direct currently state-of-the-art poses, this report minimizes result of a second major NPS facilities) as NHLs under the consideration of historic preser- study of scientific facilities, this "Astronomy and Astrophysics" vation in the private, corporate time centered on historically sig- theme. Designation of an addi- defensehesearch and develop- nificant astronomical obser- tional eight properties was ment sector. vatories and astrophysics postponed indefinite^^.^ Inactive facilities, facilities facilities. The affected institu- that have been substantially tions objected that designation modified or changed from their of certain obse~atoriesas original purpose and function, NHLs would inhibit scientific re- or installations engaged in search, largely because of the operations involving uses of implications for compliance with "normai" technology in a par- Section 106 of NHPA should ticular engineering field, e.g., NHL status be conferred. In power plants, have been con- meetings of the National Park sidered during the course of this System Advisory Board and its study but have received substantially less attention because

1 This amendment was renewed for Fiscal Year 1991. 2 These additional properties include Palomar's MO-inch reflector and 48.inch Oschin [Schmidt] telescopes, the Mount Wilson Observatory, the Lick Observatory Building and the Lick Crossley &inch reflector telescope, the Allegheny Observatory, the Yerkes Observatory, and the U.S. Naval Observatory. 3 The Council's experience to date with both groups of active facilities under Section 106 is extremely limited; see Chapter 5.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATlON OPEMTION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 5

they are only tangentially Fih, files of past Council and relevant to the congressional re- Study methodology SHPO involvement with scien- quest and issues motivating it. tific and technological facilities This is also true of historic under Section 106 of NHPA and resotlrces--.- like orehistoric ar- Overall approach NPS research for NHL theme r ~ - ~ - - theological sites that exist studies were examined. To ensure balanced considera- within the boundaries of scien- Finally, field visits were made tion of the potential place of his- tific or technical installation^.^ to a number of Federal and toric preservation in the While such resources certainly federally supported scientific operation of scientific and tech- should be managed as sig- and technological institutions to nological facilities, this study ex- nificant cultural resources and assess first hand the kinds of plored several lines of inquiry. considered during planning and historic resources present and First, a presentation was execution of new or ongoing to discuss with field managers made to the Council at its projects, these resources typi- and resident scientists ways in February 1990, meeting in cally are not of historical sig- which the issues surrounding Washington, DC, which in- nificance for their scientific or this study should be addressed. cluded invited testimony from engineering contributions. NASA, NSF. NPS, NCSHPO, Facilities receiving less atten- and the American Astronomical tion in this report include, for ex- Solicitation of Society (AAS). The Aerospace ample, the launch complexes at Industries Association (AIA) was public comments Cape Canaveral Air Force Sta- also invited but was unable to tion, Florida, which are no In its letter to the Council, Con- send a representative. As a longer active facilities, and, in gress asked the Chairman to result of that meeting, a three- many instances, are repre- consider a number of issues in member task force of Council sented only by concrete pads the analysis (page 1, above). members, including one Federal and abandoned support struc- These questions were ex- agency representative, one ex- tures; the original and historical- panded in the Council's request pert and one member of the ly significant hydroelectric for public comment published in general public, was formed to plants that are now part of the the Federal Register on March oversee the study. Tennessee Valley Authority 16,1990, and in a memorandum Second, the public request (TVA) system; as well as the to all SHPOs from the Council's for comments on the above considerable number of prehis- Executive Director dated March questions was printed in the toric archeological sites located 9, 1990. These solicitations Federal Register on March 16, asked: within the perimeter of the DOE .*A,. facilities at Savannah River, I YYU. Third, an advisory panel of Owhat issues should be con- South Carolina, Los Alamos, scientists, managers, and sidered in striking a New Mexico, and Hanford, preservation professionals con- balance between the public Washington. vened twice to review issues dis- values of historic preserva- cussed in this report and tion and the need for highly provide comments on the draft technological and/or scien- report. tific facilities to respond Fourth, two meetings were promptly to changes in held in Washington with staff technology? from the National Museum of qwhat are the principal im- American History, Division of pediments to achieving Science and Technology, and such a balance, such as the National Air and Space the need for continuing Museum of SI. changes to facilities to

4 Unfortunately, it is at these sites that SHPOs and the Council have had more active involvement.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORlC PKESERVATION 6 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

keep up with and advance eligible for the National I National Air and Space scientific and technological Register, by the agency, Museum, Smithsonian Institu- developments, your office, or NPS, and if tion, Washington, DC misunderstanding or other so, under what criteria?) INational Museum of factors leading to delays in Has your office conducted American History, Smithsonian the historic preservation project review(s) of them Institution, Washington, DC review process, and under Section 106? security concerns at The following additional facilities facilities, among others, have been visited by Council and how can these be staff since 1980 as part of the managed? Scientific and technological facilities visited Section 106 review process. Owhat procedures can or IKennedy Space Center, should be implemented to Council staff visited the follow- Cape Canaveral, Florida (NASA) ensure that both the his- ing facilities as part of this IJohnson Space Center, toric preservation and study: Houston, Texas (NASA) scientific/technological IMarshall Space Flight Cen- ILangley Research Center, communities assist each ter, Huntsville, Alabama (NASA) other effectively to ensure Langley, Virginia (NASA) that the respective needs I Alabama Space and Rocket ICape Canaveral Air Force Center, Huntsville, Alabama of historic preservation and Station, Cape Canaveral, (State of Alabama) facility operations are met? Florida (USAF) IRedstone Arsenal, Huntsville, where do perceived inade- IWhite Sands Missile Range, Alabama (Army) quacies exist in the way in White Sands, New Mexico which reminders of this IJet Propulsion Laboratory, (Army) country's scientific legacy Pasadena, California IWatervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, are now preserved, and (NASAICalifornia Institute of New York (Army) how might they be ad- Technology) dressed? IHanford Site, Richland, Palomar Ob~eNatory,San Washington (DOE) qwhere do opportunities Diego County, California exist to enhance public (California Institute of Technol- Ocoee 1and Ocoee 2 education in this area ogy) hydroelectric plants, near Chat- through cooperation be- tanooga, Tennessee (WA) IMount Wilson Observatory. tween the scientific1 tech- Angeles National Forest, Califor- nological and historic nia (Mount Wilson Institute) preservation communities? Participation by m Goddard Space Flight Cen- scientists and managers, In addition to the above ques- ter, Greenbelt, Maryland (NASA) tions articulated in the Federal and thepreservation com- I U.S. Naval Obse~atory, Register, the following addition- munity Washington, DC (USN) al questions were asked of The Council received written SHPOs: ILos Alamos National comments on its Federal Laboratory, Los Alamos Coun- Register notice from the Califor- UDOyou know of such ty, New Mexico (DOE) Federal or federally sup- nia Institute of Technology (Cal- ported facilities within your IYerkes Obsen/atory, Williams Tech) and the University of state? Bay, Wisconsin (University of Chicago (UC) as well as six Chicago) SHPOs. Subsequently, a repre- Have they been evaluated sentative of one Federal agency for their historic sig- IDavid Taylor Research Cen- ter, Bethesda, Mayland (USN) and one additional SHPO nificance? (Have any been provided specific written com- formally determined to be ments.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HInORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

An ad hoc advisory panel Finally, Chapter 7 outlines embracing the Federal, scien- conclusions and makes specific tific, and preservation com- recommendations concerning munlies was also convened by how to better integrate historic the Council to provide advice preservation with operations of and technical assistance during scientific research and technical the course of this investigation. facillies. Members of the panel reviewed an issues paper and, subsequently, the second draft of this report.

Report organization

Following this introduction, Chapter 2 provides a context for this study, including an overview of the nature of Federal and federally supported scientific research and the Federal historic preservation program. Chapter 3 discusses several principal areas of potential conflict the Council has identified between the respective goals of scientific research and historic preservation. Chapter 4 presents information on the historic significance of some scientific and technical facilities, including the criteria used and the normal process of evaluation. Chapter 5 presents information about past Section 106 review of Federal and federally assisted scientific and technological facilities and assesses current trends in Federal agencies meeting their obligations under Sections 106 and 11 0 of NHPA. Chapter 6 describes options available to achieve a more effective balance between preservation concerns and scientific and technical research.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISORIC PRESERVATION CHAmR 2: A context for analysis: Federal support of science and technology and the Federal historic preservation program

Yet new scientific discoveries At the same time research in- Overview and applications, as well as the stitutions and facilities must means to capitalize on them, remain sensitive to costs and That the United States should depend directly upon the scien- pursue the most cost-effective do all it can to stay in the tific community's access to research methods and materials forefront of scientific and tech- state-of-the-art equipment and as they are developed. nological advancement goes facilities. On the other hand, given the without question. One popular Clearly scientific institutions IateZOth-century pattern of response to presentday trade and research universities must rapid technological advance- deficits has been to exhort the be able to mobilize the best ment, it can be argued that the nation's technical industries to available equipment and preservation of the physical en- maintain or reestablish leader- facilities if they are to respond vironment that facilitated that ad- ship in these areas with the to new and continuing vancement takes on increased hope of regaining international challenges. Importance. When future preeminence. generations reflect on the most

. - the first manned rurt of an Apollo emeTertj egress &stem. According to the NASA release, '?/treemelt ...and sir dummies rode it down" the slide wire. Opposite, Dr. William Pickerin& Dr. James Van Allen and Dr. Wernher von Braun hoist a model of Ejrporer I after its successfiI 1958 launching.

I0 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

significant historic resources of The crucial differencebe- search. Two key pieces of legis- the late 20th century, it may well tween, for example, the Ken- lation establishing basic Federal be that sites associated with nedy Space Center (KSC) at programs were the National man's first ventures into space, Cape Canaveral, Florida, a Science Foundation Act of 1950 with the splitting of the atom, NASA facility, and Thomas A. (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), which es- with the development of com- Edison's laboratory at West tablished NSF, and the National puters and artificial intelligence, Orange, New Jersey, part of the Aeronautics and Space Act of or with the first successful Edison National Historic Site 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.) products of genetic engineer- managed and operated by NPS, which, along with the original ing, are the first examples that is that KSC continues to func- National Advisory Committee on spring to mind. tion as a highly technical opera- Aeronautics (NACA), laid the Many of the sites and much tional and research facility. foundation for NASA. of the equipment that facilitated Edison's workplace, conversely, The National Science Foun- modern scientific and tech- is no longer used, although it dation Act of 1950, inspired by nological development are still has been prese~edas a Vannevar Bush's landmark in active use: they stand as his- memorial to Edison's life and work, Science: The Endless toric monuments to America's work. The same word, "active," Frontier (1945), formalized a ability to invent and exploit tech- describes most of the other series of informal arrangements nology and advance scientific sites under consideration. No and individual government con- and engineering knowledge. one would reasonably argue tracts into an institutionalized, Other historic facilities, struc- that active facilities should have regularly funded program of in- tures, and sites of comparable their research endeavors cur- direct governmental support for significance, however, are in tailed, that they should be scientific and engineering re- danger of being lost to future thwarted in their continuing search and education. generations. Deemed inactive need to upgrade or that they Authority for direct support of or obsolete, used for purposes should be turned into museums. scientific and technical research other than their original use, or It is, therefore, useful to ex- and development programs has "abandoned in place" under amine briefly the basis for also been delegated to in- Federal property management government support of science dividual Federal agencies under rules, these historic properties and technology before describ- a variety of programs since suffer from neglect or inade- ing the Federal historic preserva- World War 11. As these internal quate maintenance. For ex- tion program as it has evolved; programs have developed, ample, Mount Wilson both stem from post-World War Federal agencies actively Observatory, a private institu- I1 efforts to channel government engaged in scientific research tion on Angeles National Forest support into two entirely dif- and development have come to land that was built and operated ferent areas. rely on a combination of both in- by the Carnegie Institution of house and contract personnel. Washington, is now under the Both approaches are employed, care of the Mount Wilson In- for example, by NASA, by the stitute. Unless fund-raising ef- Federal support National Oceanic and Atmos- forts are successful for its of science and technology pheric Administration (NOAA)

continued o~erationand use. it and~ ~ the National Institute~ --- of may be abandoned. At cape The Federal Government par- Standards and Technology Canaveral Air Force Station, ticipates in scientific research in (NIST) of the Department of Florida, adjacent to the Ken- a variety of ways: through its Commerce (DOC), by the Na- nedy Space Center (KSC), a own agencies using Federal tional Institutes of Health (NIH) number of early launch com- employees and facilities, of the Department of Health and plexes have been abandoned in through contracts with private in- Human Services (HHS), by place by the Air Force and most dustry and public and private various branches of the Depart- of their salvageable equipment universities, and through ments of Agriculture (USDA), removed. making grants to individuals Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and academic institutions for re- and the Interior (DOI). How-

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HlSTORlC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 11

ever, NSF remains the major are much clearer and more easi- portant social, cultural, and aes- Federal agency providing in- ly defined than in those cases thetic costs. Historic buildings direct support for nondefense where the Federal Government and neighborhoods that were scientific research, either is involved in the conduct of re- treasured in their communities through grants or contracts. search only through financial as- and definitive of local heritage Many academic and scientific sistance. However, public and character, for example, research institutions also join policy concerns that underlie re- were being lost to make way for with one or more Federal agen- search support remain clear new projects. The construction cies to operate what are general- and were articulated by Erich of superhighways destroyed a ly known as Federally Funded Bloch, NSF's most recent significant number of historic Research and Development former director, on the occasion landscapes, neighborhoods, Centers (FFRDC). FFRDCs in- of the foundation's 40th anniver- buildings and archeological clude such institutions as the sary: sites. R~s~No~~sflooded the ar- Jet Propulsion Laboratory at cheological remains of entire Cal-Tech (NASA), and the ..[I]n keeping with major prehistoric cultures. Lawrence Livermore National changes in global politics Congress passed the Nation- Laboratory at the University of and international markets, al Historic Presewation Act California (DOE). With a com- the rationale for supporting (NHPA) in 1966, to ensure that bination of contracted sewices science and engineering re- these costs were considered as and grant support operated by search and education has economic growth continued. university consortia, NSF sup- been changing. As political This act set forth the provisions ports a number of National conflict among the great and philosophy of the Federal Astronomy Centers. Additionai- powers diminishes, the historic presewation program ly. NSF awards grants in sup- major arena for world com- and is the cornerstone of port of Science and Technology petition will be economics. America's presewation program Research Centers (STCs) at Inthe new global economy, today. In the act, Congress universities; the first eleven which runs on new ideas declared that the Federal grants were made in Fiscal Year and innovation, knowledge Government would: has become the critical 1989. NSF created the Science Ifoster productive harmony and Technology Research resource, and basic re- between modern society and Centers Program: search in science and en- historic resources; gineering has assumed a to promote basic research vital importance to the Iprovide preservation leader- that can most effectively be economy and to the primary ship; accomplished through objectives and concerns of administer historic resources centers--complexresearch industry. in a spirit of stewardship; problems that are large- I encourage presewation of scale, of long duration, and nonfederally owned historic that may require special resources; facilities or collaborative The Federal historic relationships across scien- preservation program I encourage preservation and tific and engineering dis- use of the historic built environ- ciplines.5 After World War II, the United ment; and States embarked on an am- In cases where the Federal I assist State and local govern- bitious program of economic ments and the National Trust for Government is physically development. By the mid- engaged in scientific research at Historic Preservation in historic 1960s, however, it became ap- preservation activities. federally owned installations, parent that a variety of domestic the Federal role and interests development initiatives had im-

5 NSF Science and Technology Resea~rch Centers, 1989, page 1

'ISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVP 12 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

program and admin- grants directly support faculty member on quartered at Yerkes istrative staff. Some the development of campus will do so as but involve data collec- laboratory work, e.g, new instruments, well. Other federally tion at other sites. instrument construe using the technical funded programs use The maintenance of tion, is conducted on facilities at the obser- the telescopes at the Yerkes Obser- campus. In contrast, vatory. At least one Yerltes without neces- vatory building and its Yerkes Observatory faculty member on the sarily requiring the grounds and assoc- ~rovidesno formal Chicaao cam~us develonment of new - - --7 - -- iated staff.- and. student.- -. academic courses but routinely uses the instruments. Still housing is the respon- does provide facilities Yerkes facilities for other federally funded sibility of the for undergraduate and this purpose; it is

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 13 14 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

the project have, for Yerkes Observatory, associated with the Ur~iversify the most patt, been constructed at Yerkes of Chicago, is operated in part with Federal support. The campus, wlzich provides research As an outgrowth of and instructional facilities in the astronomical the Kuiper Airborne sciences, contains rnarzy architecturally Obsen/atory project, a sigzifcant buildings.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 15

TWOparticular sections of the preservation program (the Council, to attempt to avoid, act are relevant to this analysis. SHPO), the Council, and other minimize, or mitigate the ad- Section 106, as amended, re- interested persons. This con- verse effect. quires Federal agencies to take sultation is intended to lead ul- The fourth step involves into account effects of undertak- timately to agreement about Council comment on the under- ings on historic properties and how agency goals can be taking. Council comment usual- afford the Council reasonable balanced with the protection of ly takes the form of a review of opportunity to comment on the historic properties at issue. the preceding steps and the sub- such undertakings. Section 110 Regulations thus do not specify sequent execution of a of the act sets forth general an outcome but ordain a Memorandum of Agreement agency program responsibilities process for creative conflict (MOA); if an agreement is not for historic property manage- resolution. reached, advisory comments ment and establishes standards The Council's regulations, are rendered by the Council. by which the adequacy of an "Protection of Historic Proper- The Federal agency then either agency's efforts to take effects ties" [36 CFR 8001 implement carries out the agreement or into account may be judged. the several principal steps of the considers the comments and Section 106 however, contains Section 106 process. proceeds with its project. Coun- the key Federal agency "com- Step one in the Section 106 cil regulations specify time limits pliance" responsibility; the process requires Federal agen- for both SHPO review and Coun- statute and its implementing cies to identify and evaluate his- cil action. regulations delimit what is toric properties that may be Council regulations also pro- generally referred to as the "Sec- affected by a project. For pur- vide means through which agen- tion 106 process." poses of 106 review, historic cies can fulfill their historic properties are those that are preservation obligations for a eligible for, or listed on, the Na- particular program, project, or Section 106 tional Register of Historic class of undertakings that would Places; properties may have his- otherwise require numerous re- The Council's role in the review toric significance at the national, quests for comments. Program- of Federal, federally assisted, State, or local level. National matic Agreements (PAS) set and federally licensed or per- Historic Landmarks, a special forth specially tailored agency mitted actions under Section category of nationally significant procedures for the Section 106 106 is to encourage agencies to properties, must be formally process and are intended to examine alternatives to potential- recommended for NHL designa- serve as a cost-effective ly destructive actions and, tion by NPS professional staff mechanism for discharging where feasible, to adopt and the NPS advisory board; agency obligations. PAS often measures that will preserve his- the Secretary of the Interior ul- have the result of improving in- toric properties that would other- timately designates the NHLs. ternal agency historic preserva- wise be damaged or destroyed. The second step in the 106 tion review procedures. The The Council has neither veto review process requires the Council encourages agencies to power nor authority to compel agency, in consultation with the consider whether PA(s) for agencies to alter actions which SHPO, to determine what effect those activities that typically af- will affect historic properties. the project under consideration fect historic properties should Council regulations implement- may have on historic properties. be develo~ed.~ ing the act, however, emphasize If the effect will be adverse, consultation between the step three requires the agency responsible Federal agency, the to consult with the relevant governor's representative of the SHPO and in many cases, the State's interests in the Federal

6 Currently, the Council has a PA with NASA for management of their NHL properties. The Council is working with NSF, NCSHPO, and affected academic institutions on ways to address NSF's historic presewation responsibilities for all of its grant programs.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HlSTONC PRESERVATTON 16 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WTH THE

Section 110 surplus federally owned historic Council conducts program properties when transferred reviews under the authority of Section 106 of the NHPA is a from Federaljurisdiction Section 202(a)(6) of the act. specific, issue-related mandate [§ 11Ofe)l; The guidelines are intended to which Federal agencies must to be used in conjunction with Iundertake such planning and adhere. Section 110, in con- actions as may be necessary to another NPS publication entitled trast, sets out the broad affirm- minimize harm to National His- The Secretary of the Interior's ative Federal agency Standards and Guidelines for toric Landmarks [§ llO(f)]. responsibilities with respect to Archeology and Historic Preser- historic properties. The aim of In fulfilling these responsibilities vation (48 FR 4471644740, Section 110 is to integrate an on. the Federal agency may, if 1983), which includes standards going consideration of the desired, write off the costs of for preservation planning; the values of historic properties into preservation-related activities as identification, evaluation, and Federal agencies' projects and eligible project and program registration of historic proper- programs. Specific subsections costs under Section 110(g). ties; the documentation of his- of NHPA relevant to this Federal agencies can meet their torical, architectural, analysis including mandates Section 106 obligations to "take engineering, and archeological that Federal agencies must: into account" the effects of their resources; the management of historic preservation projects: Iassume responsibility for the undertakings on historic proper- presewation of historic properties through implementing the and the desirable professional ties under their jurisdiction, and provisions of Section 110 and qualifications for participants in should utilize where feasible his- the Council's regulations [36 a given project. References to toric properties available to CFR Part 8001. To assist agen- additional technical information them [§ 110(a)(l)]; cies in better integrating a con- are also provided. cern with historic preservation Iestablish programs for iden- into their missions and activities, tification and evaluation of their the Council and NPS have joint- historic properties, and ly issued a publication entitled Juxtaposition: nominate those found to be his- The Section 110 Guidelines: public policy and the toric to the National Register Annotated Guidelines for Federal Government's [§ 11Ofa)(2)1; FederalAgency Respon- stewardship role I make records, to applicable sibilities under Section 110 of professional standards, of their the National Historic Presewa- In summary, the Federal historic historic properties that must be tion Act (1989). The publication preservation program, especial- damaged or destroyed so that includes detailed discussions of ly Sections 106 and 110 of there will be a permanent, ar- the subsections of Section 110, NHPA, is designed to give the chived record of their existence setting forth requirements sub- Federal Government a leader- [§ 110fb)I; section-by-subsection,their ap- ship role in the stewards hi^ of plicability and the kinds of historic properties. At times, Idesignate a Federal Historic Presewation Officer who coor- positive actions agencies need this public policy may come into to take to comply with them. dinate' that agency's conflict with other policies sup- tion activities under the NHPA The principles and approaches porting basic research as well 18 iinh~i. set forth in the guidelines have as engineering development ac- La ' ~"l",,, been approved by the Council tivities. This report asks how Icarry out their missions in a for Federal agency use in meet- can oraanizations,- whose manner consistent with the in- ing responsibilities under Sec- primary missions are active re- tents andpurposes of the NHPA tion 106. The Council also uses search and highly technical Is 11Ofd)l; the Section 110 guidelines as operations, also perform their the basic standard against Irequest, if desired, the public stewardship role for the Secretary of the Interior to which to measure the adequacy nation's historic resources, review plans for the use of of agency programs when the given the need to continually

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

modify or replace "historic" One might ask what facilities and equipment? Who "preserving America's cul- will pay for "mitigation" tural heritage" may have to measures? do with investing in Concerns about maintaining America's future. To many the ability to rapidly adapt to the connection is not ob- changing technologies lie at the vious. But the connection is heart of the ambivalence with important nonetheless. To which engineers, scientists, and the extent that investing in site managers, among others, the future tends to em- view historic preservation at phasize technological advan- technical facilities and research ces--as it should--there is a laboratories. Given the com- need to assure a counter- plex nature of Federal support balancing attention to aes- for many institutions, how can a thetic values. To the extent historic preservation "review' that it implies a race process that falls outside of ex- through time, there is a isting scientific or management need for a balancing ap- decisionmaking be imposed? preciation of history. And Some worry that necessary to the extent that America's compliance with Federal historic traditional cultural values preservation statutes could im- have helped make America pede the ability of American uniquely strong, it is impor- science and technology to stay tant that these values be at the forefront of international preserved--inorder that research and achievement. As they may be built upon as functional and active facilities, America continues to ad- NASA's test and development vance (Budget of the United sites, DOE nuclear research States, Fiscal Year I99I, laboratories, and DOD military January 1990, page 165). hardware research centers continually need to replace and The remainder of this study ex- upgrade equipment if they are plores how that consideration to stay at the cuning edge of can best take place, given the their respective missions. But necessary primacy of scientific the Federal agencies managing and technological advancement. or assisting these facilities also have a responsibility to present and future generations to consider the effects of their actions on the historic values embodied therein. Clearly some balancing must be done. As recognized in the FY 1991 Federal budget:

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVAnON

CHAPTER 3: Areas of tension between scientific research/technological facility operation and the Federal historic preservation program

This chapter identifies and discusses this study's five principal issues.

The Issues

what is special about scientific facilities and research/technology programs? Should they be treated differently from other Federal activities for purposes of historic preservation?

Many members of the historic preservation community argue that scientific and technological research programs should be handled no differently than other national priorities, such as economic development, transportation, affordable housing, infrastructure maintenance, Some argue that important scientific facilities are as worthy ofpreservation or rural development. In as battlefields or houses. Others counter that the '%historic"component of general, projects and programs scientificfacilities is far more narrow. At leff is an aerial view of the Mount designed to advance national Wlson observatory compla; above, fechniciar?spolish the 200-inch lens-- goals must comply with the Na- some would say the most historic co~nponent--ofMount Palomar's tional Historic Preservation Act Hale telescope. and other similar environmental statutes. Such requirements ensure consideration of historic should be treated the same way houses, battlefields, and ar- values in project planning or as other recipients of Federal as- cheological sites. Each facility Federal assistance decisions sistance. or piece of equipment, they but leave the final determination Many preservationists view argue, illustrates a specific mo- up to the Federal agency so historical manifestations of ment in America's historical long as it has "taken into ac- scientific or technological development; these vestiges of count" the consequences of its achievements, including both scientific advancement, there- actions on historic properties. equipment and physical fore, deserve preservation con- Preservationists assert that facilities, as equally as worthy of sideration at least. scientific and technological re- preservation as more ubiquitous On the other hand, members search programs and facilities reminders of the past, such as of the scientific community

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 20 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

make a distinction between believe that Palomar's 48-inch as a living part of our com- scientific advancements them- Oschin Telescope is significant munity life and development in selves, and the facilities and for its ability, for example, to order to give a sense of orienta- equipment used to achieve view large areas of the sky and tion to the American people." them. In this context, what is contribute to more accurate sky The act continues to affirm that historically important about plac. surveys; if the telescope has 'the preservation of this ir- ing men on the moon may well any significance, its significance replaceable heritage is in the be that the United States found derives solely from its engineer- public interest so that its vital this goal worthy of pursuit. Ex- ing and optical qualities. Cer- legacy of cultural, educational, cellent examples of the tech- tainly astronomers appreciate aesthetic, inspirational, nological achievements that the technical means of facilitat- economic, and energy benefits grew out of that commitment, ing scientific advancements, will be maintained and enriched such as the Saturn V launch and would be the first to honor for future generations of vehicle, the Lunar Rover, and the historic telescopes involved. Americans." Lunar Module, are already in Still, they assert that the es- Who benefits, or should museums. Some argue that this sence of an optical telescope is benefit, from such a policy and material, in combination with its mirror and/or lenses. The in what ways? Certainly public contemporaryfilms, written his- most important part of the instru- education and inspiration are tories, and astronauts' equipment can neither be seen nor factors here; additional motiva- ment, adequately illustrates appreciated by looking at the ex- tion for preservation lies in its modern scientific achievements. terior of the telescope in ques- public relations value. Any dis- In this view, the basic--all tion. cussion of ways in which public though sometimes unique-- This question of what historic understanding of highly scien- equipment or specialized significance these scientific tific research can be enhanced facilities that played a role in tools may possess apart from must make distinctions between hardware design, construction, their very real contributions to the casual museum visitor, the and perfection are merely tools scientific progress is an impor- beginning student, and the used to produce the final tant one which lies at the heart more serious scholar of science product--scientists' and of disagreements between and technology. The casual engineers' "hammers," one many scientists and preser- visitor, one curator remarked, facilities manager explained. It vationists. Clearly, why an ob- may be interested enough in the could be argued, therefore, that ject or facility is considered to subject to go to a museum, but such facilities are not inherently be historically important, and to he or she also wants to be enter- historically valuable. No one at whom, will need to be tained. Interactive displays NASA, for example, would developed before the apparent which provide the opportunity argue that the Apollo spacecraft conflict between scientific ad- to touch actual hardware as- or its predecessors, the Mercury vancement and preservation of sociated with an historically sig- and Gemini capsules, are not America's scientific past can be nificant project are aimed at this prime examples of American en- resolved. group. If these visitors can gineering excellence and should leave the museum feeling that Who is the preservation be preserved. The launch sites they have learned something, audience? Who benefits and testing equipment used to so much the better. from the preservation of support the missions, however, These factors come into play historic and scientific and merely facilitated the in presentations to school stu- technical resources? spacecrafts' ultimate and suc- dents as well. The scholarly or cessful use and are not in them- Another way of raising this ques- avocational museum visitor, on selves valuable. In the field of tion is to ask, "Why preserve?" the other hand, tends to want astronomy, scientists assert that 1, the preamble to NHPA, con. more detailed information than what is most important are gress declares that 'the histori- is Often available on the display knowledge gains that have been cal and cultural foundations of placard. Preservation of actual made, not the equipment used the ~~~i~~ be hardware is only one facet of a to gather new information. They given project's interest.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 21

The distinction between the servatory holds similar open missions and programs? Is it in casual museum-goer and the house tours each week. the public interest to spend more serious student of science NPS fully considered the role funds on maintenance, interpre- and technology deserves care- of museums in their decisions tive materials, historians, ar- ful attention. At the which led to the Secretary of the chivists, and additional visitor Smithsonian's National Air and Interior's designation of national- facilities to ensure that all may Space Museum, for example, a ly significant properties in the visit and have access to ap- well-stocked bookstore comple- "Man in Space" program. propriate information? To what ments displays of aircraft and Museums have preserved one lengths should an agency go to space-related objects. part of the story. Nevertheless, preserve the physical hardware Bookstore material ranges from testing facilities and hardware that played a part, however tech- age-specific general interest that would likely be of less inter- nical, in a nationally significant publications, to detailed discus- est to the casual museum-goer, event? The recommendations sions of specific aircraft and e.g., the Spacecraft Magnetic contained in the last chapter ex- manufactures, to sophisticated Test Facility at Goddard Space amine the range of the preserva- treatments of various space Flight Center, the 25-Foot tion public to suggest a variety projects and programs. Space Simulator at the Jet of ways through which agencies Videotapes illuminating the his- Propulsion Laboratory, or the could better preserve and tory of aeronautics and Variable Density Tunnel at present America's collective spaceflight are also available for Langley Research Center were scientific heritage. purchase. In exhibitions them- still designated. It is the selves, there are clear differen- Council's perception, therefore, ces between the waik-through that with "Man in Space" at any mockup of the SkyLab space rate, historic preservation has station, popular with both tried to address the needs of children and adults, and the both the casual museum-goer highly technical interactive ex- and the serious student of hibii on the use of computers in space sciences. Obviously, aeronautical design, flight test- problems occur when much of ing, and aircraft operation called the historically scientific work "Beyond the Limits: Flight remains classified for national Enters the Computer Age." security reasons, such as much Similar audience distinctions are of the early research toward the made at the Alabama Space atomic bomb conducted at Los and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alamos. Alabama, which also serves as The distinction between the the museum and interpretive museum visitor and the scholar center for NASA's Marshall of science and technology also Space Flight Center. Not only has important implications with can visitors view technical ex- regard to the "preservation" of hibits on Marshall's role in history. The retention of com- aerospace research and ponents of America's scientific development but also ride in the past and the kinds of measures "Spacewalker" to get a brief feel- various facilities might pursue to ing of weightlessness. At the balance their mission needs U.S. Naval Observatory, open- with preservation depend in house eveninas every Monday larae part on public interest in include a technical tdur and ob- that past. ~okhatlengths The US. Naval Observatory offers portunities to look through the should Federal agencies go to public tours, which include a look 26-inch refracting telescope preserve physical sites and to through the telescope used to dis- used in the 1877 discovery of make available detailed informa- cover the moons of Mars in the moons of Mars. Yerkes Ob- tion on the history of agency 1877.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 22 BALANCING HISTORICPRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

17 What is the nature and sig- Federal scientific research nificance of the affected operations include: historic resources? Why r Sites publicly associated are they important, and with major scientific advances how should they relate to or technologically significant the evaluation criteria and events, e.g., the Mission Opera- process established under tions Control Center at Johnson historic preservation Space Center near Houston statutes? Texas; the Los Alamos National The criteria for evaluation of a Laboratory in Los Alamos, New potentially historic property as Mexico; Rogers Dry Lake at Ed- promulgated by NPS for the Na- wards Air Force Base, Califor- tional Register of Historic Places nia; identifies four complementary I Equipment and facilities types of significance. Proper- used to make significant advan- ties: (a) that are associated with ces in science and technology, events that have made a sig- e.g., the Saturn V Dynamic Test nificant contribution to the Stand at Marshall Space Flight broad panerns of history; or (b) Center in Huntsville, Alabama; that are associated with the the full-scale wind tunnel at lives of persons significant in Langley Research Center, the past; or (c) that embody the Hampton, Virginia; distinctive characteristics of a I Rare or unique examples of type, period, or method of con- historically significant technol- struction, or that represent the ogy itself, e.g., the Hale 200- work of a master, or that pos- Inch Telescope at Palomar sess high artistic values, or that Observatory in San Diego Coon. represent a significant and dis- ty, California; the Experimental tinguishable entity whose com- Breeder Reactor No. 1near ponents may lack individual Arco, Idaho; and distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to Architecturally significant yield, information important in laboratory buildings and prehistory or history [36 CFR 5 facilities where research was 60.41. In addition to at least one carried out, e.g., Yerkes Obser- of these qualities, the property vatoiy; US. Naval Obsemto~y must "possess integrity of loca- buildings. tion, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and as- While many of the more visible sociation," as relevant. That is, historic facilities and pieces of there must be sufficient historic significant equipment are material or sense of historic con- owned by various Federal text for a visitor to appreciate as departments or agencies, it is historic. likely that the majority of such Scientific and techrtical resources Within this general facilities, including buildings, engineering structures, and scien- achieve historic significance for a framework, scientific and techni- nitmberof reasons. The U.S. cal resources with historic value tific equipment, are in Naval Observatory, above, is would generally fall under one non-Federal hands. Historic achievements are linked to architechually significant. or more of the first three criteria. Launch Pad 516 at Cape Canaveral Potentially historic resources private research institutions, is a site associated with major that could be affected by State universities, and com-

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HlSI'ORlC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

panies engaged in research and what are the possible development work. Thus, it is problems and misconcep- difficult to judge the universe of tions in historic preserva- historic facilities that are still ex- tion review of scientific and tant, have had relatively few technical facilities? Is modifications to their historic there resistance by scien- features, and are worthy of tists and facilities study and recognition. managers to comply with It is clear, however, that existing Federal historic several key issues arise from preservation law and proce- what is known about the kinds dures, and if so, why? of science and technology Could existing procedures facilities that may be historic. be improved or better im- These issues must be con- plemented? sidered carefully in any future evaluations of significance. It is the responsibility of the Areas that will require examina- Federal agency to identify and tinn inrl~~do. evaluate historic properties under its jurisdiction and to take Ithe age of the facility or its reasonable steps to ensure that equipment (the normal age for they are not inadvertently lost, initial consideration for in- damaged, or destroyed. This clusion to the National Register responsibility also extends to of Historic Places is 50 years, al- Federal agencies that provide though there are exceptions to . . funding to non-federal organiza- rnar rue); tions or issue licenses and per- I the representativeness of the mits. Appropriate mechanisms facility, structure, or object to achieve these goals are typi- when compared to other similar cally made conditions of properties, versus its unique- Federal funding, licensing, or ness (virtually all of the "Man in permitting. Space" and 'Astronomy and Of primary concern to both Astrophysics" facilities con- Federal agencies and privately sidered as NHLs are one-of-a- owned scientific and technical kind); facilities is the possibility that their compliance with Section Ithe "integrity" ofihe 106 of the NHPA and the resource, given the continuing Council's regulations might im- alterations that have taken pede national efforts to stay at place at such facilities, in terms the forefront of scientific ad- of continuity of function and the vancement. Impediments might amount of original historic include excessive delay through fabric, material, or equipment plan review, the forced modifica- still extant; and tion or 'Veto" of plans for new I the conduct of the evalua- facilities as a result of a lack of tecl'nolo@ladvances:fhefirst tion, including the qualifications understanding of the scientific is- manned was made of the evaluator and persons sues or equipment involved, from here in j961. mepad nowis consulted during the evalua- and/or an injection of politics part of the Air Force Space tion. into the scientific decisionmak- Museum, which preserves many ing process, e.g., State or local irnpottant remnants of the space government becoming involved, age forpublic benefit.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 24 BALANCING HISTORICPRESERVATION NEEDS WTH THE

or the provision of a public take precedence over historic display about the development forum for research decisions. preservation considerations. of the atomic bomb? Would the Scientific organizations fear Scientists also emphasize that opportunity to view an actual that the preservation community the best way to "preserve" such 1950s nuclear reactor control does not fully appreciate that facilities is to continue to use room or the workspaces where new technologies and ways of them; this decision justifies an Fat Man and Little Boy were as- capitalizing on them depend otherwise insupportable continu- sembled enhance public under- upon state-of-the-art laboratory ing maintenance commitment. standing of this complicated equipment. When space and The vast majority of Federal period in American history? At money is at a premium, this funds for scientific research is what cost should the public be often results in the removal and used to acquire state-of-the-art provided the chance to ex- excessing of obsolete equip- and more basic equipment, in perience directly the physical ment. It can also mean addition to purchasing com- manifestations of America's modifications to the facility and puter time and paying staff scientific and technological its equipment which can, over salaries. Most scientific re- heritage? time, compromise the historical search that receives Federal Many pathbreaking instru- "integrity." funding, therefore, is unlikely to ments and scientific facilities It may be that this apprehen- affect historic properties remain in use; it is by their con- sion emanates from a lack of un- through destroying or altering tinued long-term use, in fact, derstanding by the scientific their historic characteristics. A that they have become a part of community of the Federal his- small minority of such activities, America's heritage. To the ex- toric preservation review however, does have that poten- tent that they continue to func- process. There is, however, a tial, and must be carefully con- tion in their original scientific similar ignorance of the work- sidered. research role, they stand as ings of scientffic facilities on the living historic monuments to what are possible ways to part of the preservationists. The America's ability to invent tech- enhance the public's under- concern that the SHPO, Coun- nology and advance standing of historic scien- cil, and NPS staff may not be knowledge. Yet public interest tific and technological able to make informed, timely in the history of science and properties, and the most ap- judgments on the historical sig- technology continues to rise. propriate measures to nificance of scientific equipment Approximately three million mitigate the effects of and facilities and assess effects people visited Kennedy Space development or modifica- of specific projects on them has Center in 1989. The tion? Where does the some validity based on previous Smithsonian's National Air and public interest lie in the experience. Facilities Space Museum, the most preservation and interpreta- managers' worst fears would be popular of all Smithsonian tion of historic scientific confirmed the first time an objec- museums, continues to break at- and technological resour- tion is made on the basis of tendance records; annual totals ces, and what special inter- "lack of information" concerning exceed 7.4 million. Clearly est groups or other either the historic significance of Americans welcome oppor- constituencies have inter- a property or the effects of a tunities to learn more about ests in such decisions proposed modification to that these aspects of their national beyond the scientists and property. heritage. In addition, the poten- other researchers using As previously discussed, tial of such places to inspire fu- such facilities? most scientific equipment is not ture generations to science viewed as a candidate for Who will benefit from the reten- should not be underestimated. preservation in the standard his- tion of the vestigesof ~~~~i~s~ Council staff visits to various toric preservation sense. Conse- scientific technological past scientific facilities to gather infor- quently, most scientists would that go beyond museum ex- mation for this study determined argue that the need to replace, hibits and written histories? Is it that 1) virtually all facilities have modify, or remove research enough to see an interpretive some sort of "public awareness" equipment as necessary should program or small visitor facility;

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESER\ OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFICFACILITIES 25

and 2) there is a variety of ways forward with its mission? The I Who is the preservation in which these facilities convey following mitigation measures audionro?- .- . . - - . their respective achievements to are used in many Section I06 Identification and evalua- the public. projects by the Council, Federal tion Many of NASA's installations, agencies, and SHPOs where ap- the California Institute of propriate: IWhat is the nature and sig- Technology's Palomar Obser- nificance of the affected historic I onsite interpretation of his- vatory, and DOE facilities such resources? toric sites; as the Los Alamos Laboratory n~ssessingeffect and the and the Oak Ridge National Icompiling and archiving en- Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Ten- gineering drawings and consultation process nessee, have museums where diagrams; IWhat are possible problems the visitors can learn more and misconceptions in historic Ihistoric and modern about the agency and the re- photographic or other presefvation review of scientific search a given installation is audiovisual documentation and and technical facilities? conducting under its aegis. archiving; Under the provisions of the Na- n~reatrnentand stewardship tional Aeronautics and Space Iincreased support of visitor IHow can the public's under- Act of 1958, NASA is charged centers, museums, displays, standing of historic scientific with development of public tours, and other visitor experien- and technological prope!ties be education and outreach ces; and enhanced, and what are the programs. Some of these Iwritten popular and technical most appropriate measures to museums and visitor centers histories and other accounts. mitigate the effects of develop- are small and apparently under- ment or modification? funded; others, such as at Ken- Questions concerning ap- nedy Space Center, which is propriate mitigation measures The first two general issues are operated as a concession con- that need to be addressed in- explored throughout the tract for NASA by TW Seivices clude: Will implementation of remainder of this report; the last Inc., attract millions of visitors mitigation measures "intelfere" three are more specific and are each year. Whatever their with the business of ongoing analyzed in greater detail in budget, these places typically scientific research? Who is chapters 4, 5, and 6. These is- contain exhibits involving ex- responsible for funding and im- sues provide clues to how con- cess or obsolete hardware from plementing mitigation measures flicting values can be better the installation itself; often ex- when a Federal agency grants balanced in the future. Each hibits are adjacent to exhibits research funds to a non-Federal issue is addressed in summary prepared by contractors to research and development form in this report's final chapter show off their work. Many of entity? which also contains general con- these centers contain clusions and recommendations. bookstores where visitors can obtain more detailed informa- . tion on the project or program Summary of interest. In addition to museum reten- The principal issues identified tion of the more popular, visible, by the Council during the con- components of America's scien- duct of this study may be tific heritage, are there other ef- grouped as follows: fective methods to convey this legacy? Are there any routine mitigation measures that an IWhat are the unique charac- agency could employ to retain teristics of scientific facilities important historical information and researchltechnology while allowing the agency to go programs?

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATlON

CHAPTF,R 4: The historic significance of scientific and technological facilities

One key issue that figures in whether the property, object, prominently in discussions with structure, or facility can or will Why scientific and agencies and affected institu- be preserved, much less how t technological facilities are tions is exactly what is historic can be preserved. The Federal historically". imaortant: about their facilities and who preservation program enters criteria of significance should be making these deter- into this picture here through 1) minations of significance. In the NPS; NHL program, 2)ihe theory, the Federal preservation application of criteria for in- Background program makes a distinction be- clusion in the National Register tween what is considered his- of Historic Places, and 3) the What makes a property histori- toric and what should be process of identifying and cally significant? This question preserved: however, in practice evaluating properties that might is not answered easily, especial- these distinctions often blur. be historically significant, in this ly in the case of scientific ob- Those making formal judgments case for their role in science jects and facilities where of historic significance are not and technology. specialized knowledge and a the only ones who have a stake background in the history of

What makes aproperfy historically significant? That question is not always easily answered. Below is an early photograph of a 1922 variable density wind tunnel, now a NationalHisforic Landmark. Opposite is a Pansonic wind tunnel built in 1939 and renovated in 1990; to date, it has not been designated historic.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 28 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

science and technology may be this designation merely means A property is eligible for in- required. Subjective elements that the property is worthy of clusion in the Register if it meets and judgments enter into any consideration in planning and the National Register criteria. It such evaluation. What events decisionmaking. However, is eligible to be considered for or discoveries were critical over there are practical problems NHL designation if it meets the life of a scientific facility? with maintaining this distinction specific NHL criteria. What elements of the facility are between evaluation and treat- National Register criteria pro- imbued with "historic" value, ment, and these problems have vide the basis for evaluating the and what are more recent altera- become particularly evident in historic significance of proper- tions or modifications? Does a discussions of historically sig- ties. NPS, which maintains the property's historic value derive nificant scientific and technical National Register, is the final ar- from its association with events properties. bier of whether given properties or persons, making physical his- meet the National Register toric fabric of secondary impor- criteria. The National Register tance? The National Register of criteria are set forth at 36 CFR 5 Opinions about historical sig- Historic Places and 60.4 and state that: nificance, on the part of profes- National Historic sionals and the general public The quality of significance alike, vary widely with the pas- Landrnarkr in American history, ar- sage of time and changes in For purposes of the Federal chitecture, archeology, en- public attitudes toward our col- Government and Section 106 gineering, and culture is lective heritage. Public taste is review, a "historic property" is present in districts, sites, notoriously capricious; so, too, one that is listed In or eligible for buildings, structures, and is scholarly interest. For ex- listing in the National Register of objects that possess in- ample, most people today find Historic Places. The Register is tegrity of location, design, architectural and aesthetic value the nation's official list of his- setting, materials, workman- in Victorian buildings; 30 to 40 toric resources; it includes over ship, feeling, and associa- years ago this was not the case. 52,000 buildings, sites, struction and: The dependencies and slave tures, districts, and objects. Ad- (a) that are associated quarters found on southern plan- ditionally, all National Historic with events that have made tations and the 19th-century Landmarks (NHLs) designated a significant contribution to urban dwellings of free blacks in by the Secretary of the Interior the broad patterns of our northern cities have only recent- as properties of exceptional na- history; or ly engendered accurate public tional significance are automat- (b) that are associated interpretation to accompany ically listed on the National with the lives of persons sig- growing scholarly interest. Register; currently there are nificant in our past; or Public attitudes may well have 1,942 of these properties. Final- (c) that embody the dis- an influence on the ly, there are units of the National tinctive characteristics of a professional's evaluation, since Park System, including National type, period, or method of the professional is, after all, a Historic Sites, National Histori- construction, or that repre- part of a broader social and cul- cal Parks, National Monuments, sent the work of a master, tural milieu. and other special places under or that possess high artistic It should be emphasized that the control or jurisdiction of the values, or that represent a the decision concerning what is NPS, and these number some significant and distinguish- worthy of consideration should 350. These include units with able entity whose com- be kept separate from the both natural and historic resour- ponents may lack individual decision on what is actually to ces, and the large natural distinction; or be prese~ed.Just because a resource parks also contain his- (d) that have yielded, or property is deemed significant toric resources that must be may be likely to yield, infor- does not necessarily mean that managed. mation important in prehis- it is inviolate; in Federal historic tory or history. prese~ationprogram terms,

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

The concept of integrity is criti- preciation of those patterns The National Park System Ad- cal to the application of these may be gained; or visory Board applies these criteria. All qualified properties (2) That are associated criteria in reviewing nominations must meet one or more of the importantly with the lives of originating with SHPOs, Federal criteria and, additionally, must persons nationally sig- agencies, the National Park be judged to have "integrity." nifrcant in the history of the Sewice's History Division, or the "Integrity' does not denote ab- United States; or private sector, and in preparing solute purity, but it does (3) That represent some recommendations to the demand enough physical great idea or ideal of the Secretary of the Interior. presence to retain a "preserv- American people; or Studies leading to recom- able entit)r' that communicates (4) That embody the dis- mended designation, often en- relevant significance. tinguishing characteristics compassing a number of While National Register-listed of an architectural type properties centered on a com- and -eligible properties can specimen exceptionally valu- mon theme, are prepared by his- have three levels of significance- able for the study of a torians, archeologists, -national, state, and local--all period, style or method of anthropologists, and other NHLs are nationally significant construction, or that repre- preservation professionals historic properties. This means sent a significant, distinctive familiar with the broad range of that they are associated with and exceptional entity the nation's historic and prehis- events, or persons, or possess whose components may toric sites and themes. The distinctive characteristics, or lack individual distinction; criteria are intended to establish may be likely to yield informa- or the qualitative framework in tion, that is exceptionally impor- (5) That are composed which comparative analysis of tant for, and reflects significantly of integral parts of the en- historic properties can fruitfully on, the nation as a whole. The vironment not sufficiently take place. NHL criteria are contained in 36 significant by reason of his- CFR Sec. 65.4, and state that: torical association or artistic merit to warrant The quality of national sig- individual recognition but The process of nificance is ascribed to dis- collectively compose an en- identification and tricts, sites, buildings, tity of exceptional historical evaluation structures and objects that or artistic significance, or possess exceptional value or outstandingly com- Under NHPA, it generally quality in illustrating or in- memorate or illustrate a remains the responsibility of terpreting the heritage of way of life or culture; or each Federal agency to identify the United States in history, (6) That have yielded or and evaluate historic properties architecture, archeology, en- may be likely to yield infor- that may be affected by their gineering and culture and mation of major scientific projects or programs, or that fail that possess a high degree importance by revealing under their jurisdiction. The of integrity of location, new cultures, or by shed- Council and NPS have jointly is- design, setting, materials, ding light upon periods of sued a booklet entitled Iden- workmanship, feeling, and occupation over large areas tification of Historic Properties: association, and: of the United States. Such A Decisionmaking Guide for (1) That are associated sites are those which have Managers to assist in the iden- with events that have made yielded, or which may tification process. a significant contribution to, reasonably be expected to The evaluation process is car- and are identified with, or yield, data affecting ried out in consultation with the that outstandingly repre- theories, concepts and ideas relevant SHPO. If there is a dis- sent, the broad national pat- to a major degree. agreement as to whether a terns of United States property meets the criteria, history and from which an under Council regulations understanding and ap-

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 30 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

documentation on the property shortcomings with the "Man in 1) Are associated with must be forwarded to the Space" and "Astronomy and events that have made a sig- Secretary of the lnterior for a Astrophysics" studies is that nificant contribution to, and final determination. they focus on only selected are identified with, or that An owner of private property properties considered to pos- outstandingly represent, the may object to including his or sess national significance. broad national patterns of her eligible property in the Na- These studies are not, nor do United States history and tional Register and block it from they purport to be, comprehen- from which an under- being listed. Publicly-owned sive inventories of all properties standing and appreciation property, on the other hand, that may be eligible for the Na- of those patterns may be cannot be excluded from the tional Register of Historic gained [e.g.,going to the Register. Effects on an eligible Places; the astronomy study is moon and back six times; but unlisted property are not ex- more complete than the space America at the forefront of empt from Section 106, how- study on this point. By default, the development of new ever, since the property still this narrows the focus of exist- sciences and technology; our meets the National Register ing preservation discussions to quest for space and criteria. those specific historic proper- astronomical knowledge]; or In order to determine which ties that have been studied and 2) Are associated impor- nationally significant historic designated as NHLs. As noted tantly with the lives of per- properties should be NHLs, above, Section 106 requires sons nationally significant in nominations are first prepared agencies to "take into account" the history of the United by, or under the supervision of, the effects of their projects on States [e.g., Robert Goddard NPS. The study resulting in all properties that qualify for in- Werner volt Braurt, Alan landmark designation for the clusion in the National Register, Shepard Neil Armsfrong, properties associated with "Man and the NHL list is insufficient to George Ellery Hale, Percival in Space" was carried out as re- meet this purpose. Lowelg; or quired under Section 18 of (3)Represent some Public Law 96-344, enacted by great idea or ideal of the Congress in 1980; those result- -- American people [e.g., con- ing in landmark designation and Application of the criteria stant search for new consideration for designation in practice horizons; the national will to under the "Astronomy and send men to the moon; corn- Astrophysics" theme were car- mitment ofthe resources to ried out as part of the normal The historic significance do it];or NPS process for conducting of scientific and (4)Embody the distin- landmark theme studies. In technological facilities guishing characteristics of either case, nominations for an architectural type landmark status are then Most National Register and NHL specimen [e.g.,privately en- evaluated by the National Park criteria are met by the space dowed scientific i~tstitutions System Advisory Board, com- program and astronomical re- ofthe late-1%h and early- prised of NPS professionals, out- search facilities under review 20th centuries]; or side scholars, and interested here. Under the NHL criteria, (5) Collectively compose private citizens. Properties that which as we have discussed are an entity of exceptional his- are recommended by the ad- essentially an elaboration of Na- torical or artistic sig- visory board as deserving tional Register criteria, these ob- nificance [e.g., World War landmark status are presented jects, structures, and facilities: II-era research and develop- to the Secretary of the lnterior ment laboratories]. who makes the final decision and designation. For purposes of compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of NHPA, one of the major

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATTON OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 31

"Downwith the old," this NASA photo caption says, describinga Sahrm The age of the facility launch complex being dismantled. Scientific equipment is constantly being or its equipment modified, or it is built for a specific purpose and dismantled when no longer needed. The physical equipment that played apmin a scientific The "normal" age for considera- breakthrough, then, may be longgone when the time comes to assess its tion for listing in the National scientific contribution. Reoister- and as a NHL is 50 years. This allows for an historical perspective on the property's significance: After the passage of at least 50 years, is the property, in fact, historic? Has it stood the 'Test of time"? While not a hard-and-fast rule, this cutoff is a convenient and useful method for culling the long list of properties that may be considered historic by some, from those that should be formally evaluated against the Na- tional Register criteria. Allowances can be made for properties less than fifty years of age that, by consensus, are recognized as significant. The main terminal at Washington's Dulles Airport designed by Eero Saarinen, for example, is less than fifty years old, but is recognized as an architectural master- piece and is eligible for the Register. While this age criterion may work well when considering potential historic significance of many scientific and technological facilities (including buildings and laboratories), its use can be problematical when considering equipment and structures used in the buildings and labs. The primary reason, as pointed out at several other places in this analysis, is that equipment is constantly being modified for new kinds of research, or is built for specific purposes and dismantled, cannibalized, or discarded after use. Thus the physical equipment that played a part in a scientific breakthrough may be long gone

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON IfISTORIC PPZSERVA'ITON BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

when the time comes to assess elements of a house facing 7he "integrity"of the its scientific contribution. Cer- demolition. The same goes for tain unique kinds of equipment an archeological site--many resource, in tern of and facilities, however, can similar sites in the area not the amount of original prove useful for a very long facing the threat of disturbance historic fabric, material, time--the Hale telescope at can argue against extensive ex- or equipment still evtant Palomar is an excellent ex- cavation of the one facing andlor in use ample. The actual 200-inch mir- destruction due to a road ror would now meet the fifty project, for example. The National Register Bulletin year rule; the architecturally sig- Most of the facilities, objects, 15 defines integrity as: nificant building housing it does and structures designated as not. NHLs under the "Man in Space" "[Tlhe authenticity of a and "Astronomy and property's historic identity, Astrophysics" themes, are ex- evidenced by the survival of Representativeness versus amples from a very small physical characteristics that the uniqueness of the universe, or are unique. This existed during the facility, structure, or object same situation holds for many property's historic ...period. facilities, objects, and structures If a property retains the In theory considerations of the that are associated with other physical characteristics it uniqueness of a property, kinds of historic scientific possessed in the past then it whether it is "one of a kind.'' achievements. However, rocket has the capacity to convey should not enter into decisions launch pads share similar physi- association with historical about whether or not a property cal characteristics, as do patterns or persons, ar- is historic. It does not matter astronomical observatories or chitectural or engineering whether it is rare, relatively com- wind tunnels. What is in fact uni- design and technology, or mon, or ubiquitous in order to que, and what is representative? information about a culture be considered significant for What are the best examples, or people." purposes of Section 106. Only and how are they different from at the time that evaluation gives the most readily protected or The Bulletin goes on to state way to consultation about what preserved examples? that integrity has seven qualities is to be done with the historic Consensus among the that apply to historic properties: property should the number of preservation community is location, design, setting, extant examples be considered generally that, where possible, materials, workmanship, feeling, in reaching a decision about its rare or unique historic proper- and association (the "direct link future. In practice, the number ties should be preserved. between a property and an of examples of a particular kind Again, though, as this report event, or person... for which the of historic property (e.g., makes clear, this is not neces- property is significant... and is residences, bridges, archeologi- sarily feasible or prudent. Ex- sufficiently intact that it can con- cal sites) should be given care- cept in rare instances scientific vey that relationship"). A proper- ful consideration when deciding equipment is constantly ty must normally meet at least the appropriateness of mitiga- modified and upgraded lest it two of these tests to be eligible tion measures to be impie- lose its ability to contribute to for the National Register. In mented if the property must be scientific advancement (and most cases historic scientific destroyed or substantially ai- thus be discarded or cannibal- equipment and facilities in use tered. If many examples exist. ized), and virtually all pieces of today meet at least the design, and it appears that not all are in scientific equipment in "historic" materials, and association com- danger of being lost, it may not facilities are both representative ponents of integrity. (Other be in the public interest to and unique in some ways. Clear- properties significant for their spend considerable amounts of ly, more study is needed on ex- contributions to scientific advan- money and time to record in actly what is most worthy of and cement, such as Edison NHS. great detail all the architectural amenable to preservation. exhibit the qualities of location, setting, feeling, and association;

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

it is for this reason that Edison's use, and to replace them would cluding the technology in- laboratory is a national park be prohibitively expensive. Ex- volved, the precise identification unit.) cept for operational testing and description of historic ele- For a property to be histori- facilities or launch complexes, ments of a given facility, and ap- cally important for its scientific which in some cases undergo propriate boundaries. Problems or technological advances does major modifications (e.g., LC with NPS' NHL theme studies, not mean that it cannot be un- 39's modifications to launch the including both the process of changed, or moved to a new shuttle instead of the Saturn evaluation and eventual designa- location. Many of the active rockets) and those facilities that tion, and the substantive con- NASA and USAF launch com- are no longer in use, few struc- tent of the studies, have been plexes are illustrative here; over tures in use today will undergo raised by several agencies and time, they have had to be con- modification to such an extent institutions throughout the continually modified to support new that all integrity is lost. In most duct of the Council's study. generations of rockets. The his- cases there should be con- Based on Council experience torically significant large tele- tinuity in function, and thus in in- with cases reviewed under Sec- scopes, on the other hand, have tegrity of design and materials, tion 106, many problems have seen little physical modification and there may always be in- been created by insufficient to their basic structures. The tegrity of association. specificity about significant body and mount of the 200-inch facility features in NHL designa- Hale telescope at Palomar, or tions. All of these issues need the 40-inch refractor telescope Conduct of the evaluation, to be addressed by agencies, at Yerkes, for example, have including the gualifcations including the National Park Ser- been little modified since their in- of the evaluator and vice, performing such evalua- stallation many years ago. tions, and more scientists and What has changed in these persons consulted facilities managers should be cases are the appurtenant drive during the evaluation actively involved in evaluating potentially historic properties. mechanism, detection instru- It is critical that the person or ments, and other electronic and persons assessing whether a optic systems that enable these scientific or technological telescopes to continue to make property merits designation as their contributions to science. an NHL or qualifies for listing on The issue of integrity and the National Register have an retentionlpreservation of a understanding of the both the property's integrity has impor- historic context of the property. tant bearings on the question of and an understanding of the preservation of these historic scientific contributions made by scientific facilities. The tele- it. In the few Section 106 cases scopes and most NASA facilities involving the Council, and that meet the criteria for in- throughout the conduct of this clusion as NHLs are certainly study, scientists and agency unique, one-of-a-kind devices, managers have expressed great usually very expensive to build. apprehension about the con- In the case of the telescopes, duct of such evaluations. In there is little chance that their some instances, they disagree basic structure, the feature that with exactly what is being con- gives these historic properties sidered historic, and why. With their integrity, will be modified some justification, they are con- so that they lose the qualities of cerned that the historic preser- design, materials, and associa- vation community does not tion to such a degree so as to have an adequate and clear un- no longer be a "preservable en- derstanding of these issues, in- tity." They need to remain in

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION CHAPTER 5: The process and result of past interaction between science and technology and Federal historic preservation statutes

When Mission Control Center in Houston was uppaded in 1989, the Council reviewed NASA's action under Section 106. A National Historic Landmark, ~l\iion Control is shown here as it appeared in 1969 during an Apollo ntission. When the NHL 25-foot space sirnulator at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, opposite, was modified, Section 106 review war also com~letedas reauired bv Federal reeulation.

NHPA, the National Environmen- programs in place to address tal Policy Act (NEPA), and other Existing various aspects of historic environmental and resource agency programs for preservation. However, except protection statutes have estab- historic preservation for Army and USN, specific and lished a set of Federal policies detailed direction to personnel and implementing programs for Under Section 110(c) of NHPA, concerning management of his- the protection of America's Federal agencies are expected toric properties is largely lack- natural and cultural environ- to appoint one official, preferab- ing, aside from general ment. Private owners of historic ly at the headquarters level with instructions concerning com- properties may do what they agency-wide authority, to coor- pliance with Section 106. (DOE wish to their property without in- dinate that agency's historic is currently formalizing proce- curring Federal penalties. On preservation activities. Most of dures for care of historic proper- the other hand, the Federal the agencies examined during ties on its lands.) Table 1 Government and private owners this study already have such in- summarizes the general status receiving any kind of Federal as- dividuals on staff; most also of these programs according to sistance may not without first have existing procedures, principal agencies involved with complying with Section 106. guidance, and/or other

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

36 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

historic scientific and technical over the years. The number of properties. Section 106 cases cases concerning modifications Additionally, many, if not at science and technology or other effects to facilities and most, of the Federal agencies facilities structures important for their that were the focus of this study contribution to the history of have staff historians and/or ar- The Council's caseload of agen- science and technology that chivists responsible for writing cy undertakings referred to it remain actively in use has been official histories of programs under Section 106 of NHPA has extremely small. There are a and projects, providing refer- grown steadily to the level of number of reasons for this. ence se~ices,and/or curating 2,903 in Fiscal Year 1989. First, it is probable that manuscript and photographic SHPOs estimate that they numerous modificationsto materials generated by the daily reviewed 100,800 Federal under- potentially historic facilities have business of government. Table takings in Fiscal Year 1988; of been made over the years 2 summarizes the resources of that number, 1,524 were han- without compliance with Sec- these offices. dled by the Council during that tion 106 of NHPA. Second, the NASA is somewhat unique in same period. An additional 652 50-year rule normally applied to that t is the only agency cases carried over into Fiscal properties that might meet Na- reviewed in this study that has Year 1989; this brings the FY tional Register criteria may have its own visitor centers and 1988 total to 2,176 cases involv- precluded consideration of museums, as well as an existing ing the Council at some level. many otherwise potentially agreement with SI for the dis- The Council has commented eligible facilities that are consid- position of hardware no longer on a number of cases under erably less than 50 years old. required for active operational Section 106 of NHPA which in- Third, NPS, SHPOs, and programs (see Chapter 6). volved historic properties at Federal agencies with manage- scientific and technical sites ment responsibilities for such

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

properties have not established making decisions about proper- cases involving efforts to recog- identification and evaluation of ty management. nize historically significant scien- scientific and technological Most cases related to Federal tific and technical properties are resources as one of their or federally assisted undertak- summarized in Tables 3A and B. priorities. Further, where scien- ings at scientific and technical The small number of these tific and technological proper- facilities that come under Coun- cases raises questions about ties have been identified as cil review have been "routine," in- the Section 106 process as it historically significant, this infor- volving nontechnical projects has come to be used by agen- mation is not necessarily used such as parking lots, roads, cies in activities affecting his- effectively or consistently in landscaping or building con- toric properties at highly struction. Actual Section 106 technical or scientific facilities.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 40 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WTH THE

O~gencieswith an existing O0f those undertakings that n~acilitiesmanagers and system for integrating his- could affect historic scien- other concerned research toric preservation into tific or technical resources, personnel have little under- routine business, including alteration as a result of standing of technical early and meaningful con- equipment upgrade is likely aspects of historic preser- sulation with the SHPO to be problematic because vation and specific treat- andlor the Council, can ad- of general uncertainties ment of historic resource dress preservation con- about effects on historic problems. cerns effectively through properties as well as the O~pparent"delays" in the his- the Section 106 process. overall timing of the modifications. toric preservation review m~an~of the undertakings process seem to derive at scientific and technologi- OSHPOSand other historic primarily from inadequate cal facilities concern preservation professionals or poorly understood proce- routine maintenance and have linle understanding of dures, lack of under- retrofitting that may the historical foundations standing of the effects of damage historic structures of modern science and specific projects on the his- but have linle, if any, effect technology or of the opera- toric values of facilities, on ongoing research or tion of scientific and tech- miscommunication be- technical operations. nological research tween consulting parties, institutions. or outside forces.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

Section 106 review process. search Center in Ohio; installa- NASA case study These cases involve modification of a parking lot adjacent to examples tions to the 25-foot space the Vehicle Assembly Building, simulator at the Jet Propulsion Launch Complex 39, Kennedy As the result of a careful review Laboratory in Pasadena, Califor- Space Center, Cape Canaveral, of past Section 106 cases involv- nia, which is a NASA facility Florida; and modifications to the ing scientific and technological operated under contract by the mobile service tower at Launch resources, the Council deter- California Institute of Technol- Complex 13, Cape Canaveral mined that, to date, cases involv- ogy, and modifications to the Air Force Station in Cape ing NASA facilities were most Mission Operation Control Cen- Canaveral, Florida (NASA use applicable to the issues sur- ter/Apollo Mission Control under USAF management). rounding this study. Six case Room at Johnson Space Center These six cases vividly il- histories of NASA undertakings in Houston, Texas. lustrate the range of agency un- that were subject to Section 106 For comparison, the Council dertakings affecting historic review follow. examined an additional four properties, in addition to a num- Of these six cases, two rela- cases involving NASA: the ber of issues surrounding this tively recent cases have been relocation of the variable den- study. They also highlight the cited by concerned academic sity tunnel at Langley Research problematic nature of consul- research institutions in relation Center in Langley, Virginia; tation for these particular types to the potential for delay they modifications to the rocket en- of historic properties. perceived to be inherent in the gine test facility at Lewis Re-

Most cases relaled to Federal utidertakiligs at technical facilities have been routine, involving such projects as roads, parking lots, or landscaping. These arcl~eologicalsites being excavated at Los Alanios National Laboratory in New Merico were the subject of Section 106 review in 1986.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATTON BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

Modification of Launch Complex 39 at the implement several mitigation Apoilo Mission Control Kennedy Space Center are measures, including compiling (1989) the two resources that sym. complete photographic and bolize for most Americans technical documentation of the in June 1987, NASA initiated achievements of the Apollo flight control rooms, consultation with the Texas manned space program along with flight plans, check- SHPO on plans to upgrade its leading to the successful lists, and procedures of mis- Mission Control Center (MCC) first moon landimg during sions controlled from the MCC. at Johnson Space Center in the flight of Apollo 11 in The agency also was willing to Houston. The MCC, commonly July 1969. explore the potential for replicat- known as the Apdlo Mission ing an Apollo Flight Control Control, is an "NHL significant In accordance with the Room for a new visitor center to for its association with moon Council's regulations, NASA be built at the Johnson Space landings." NASA planned to and the Texas SHPO deter- Center. NASA could not construct a new five-story space mined that upgrading the MCC preserve the existing facility in station control center adjacent would have an adverse effect on place. to the existing three-story MCC. the NHL. Accordingly, NASA Believing that further consult- to upgrade the equipment and subsequently consulted with the ation would not lead to an agree- facilities, and to reconfigure the SHPO to review measures that ment on how to treat the facility, two identical flight control would avoid or reduce the ef- in June 1989 NASA terminated rooms in the MCC, which have fects of the planned upgrade on consultation with the Texas controlled every U.S. manned the historic facility. The Texas SHPO and requested the corn- space mission since their con- SHPO asked NASA to consider ments of the Council. In accord- struction in 1965. Upgrading alternatives that would preserve ance with the Council's and reconfiguration were in place one of the flight control regulations, comment was deemed necessary by NASA to rooms, noting that a new con- rendered to the administrator of meet future shuttle and space trol room could be constructed NASA following a staff visit to station mission needs and will in- in the new space station control JSC and a meeting with repre- clude enhanced flight control center being built adjacent to sentatives of NASA and the equipment with new computers, the present MCC. NASA con- SHPO. In his letter conveying consoles, projectors, and wiring cluded that this was not the Council's comments, Chair- systems. feasible, given the integrated na- man John F. W. Rogers stated In response to a letter from ture of the MCC, the need for that while there were several the Council asking for informa- space, and the prohibitive cost valid constraints to the preservation on the historic significance of new facilities. In a letter to tion of the MCC, and while of the facility, the NPS the Governor of Texas. NASA NASA's proposed mitigation responded that: stated that, "[tlhe contemplated measures would assist in changes will inevitably lead to a preserving information about Through television and the facility with internal features that the MCC during its Apollo print news media the scene are different in function and ap- heyday: of activity at the Apollo Mis- pearance from the original Apol- sion Control during the first lo design. Although changes [W]e believe more can be manned landing on the occur, the facility will retain its done by NASA in response moon was made familiar to identity and will be readily recog- to Section 110(f) of the Na- millions of Americans. nizable, inside and out, as tional Historic Preservalion When Neil Armstrong having evolved from the original Act for this National His- reported his "giant leap for Apollo design." toric Landmark. Serious mankind" to Mission Con- After extensive consultation consideration needs to be trol hi words went immedi- with the Texas SHPO, no agree- given by NASA to long- ately around the world and ment could be reached concern- term preservation of into history. The Apollo ing treatment of the landmark hardware and furnishings, Mission Control Center and facility. NASA was prepared to organization of and public

ORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 43

access to Mission Control time could have been reduced cafeteria for interpretive pur- Center archives, and ap- considerably. Ultimately, the poses. propriate public interpreta- lengthy delay in time must be at- tion of the Apollo program. tributed to NASA's sincere Analysis: This case involves an desire to resolve its disagree- inactive facility whose sig- The letter recommended several ment with the State of Texas nificance has never been in steps that NASA could under- over the fate of Mission Control. question, but whose continued take to better manage this NHL, The disagreement between the maintenance and use for public including working with the state and NASA led to a letter interpretation purposes has Texas SHPO on a historic from the governor to the Presi- been problematic. It illustrates preservation plan for the MCC dent, and the Texas SHPO and the dilemma faced by NASA in to act as a guide to preservation NASA are continuing to consult its continued need to maximize of significant Apollo-era com- about ways to presewe and in- space a1 some of its facilities ponents and for future neces- terpret the historic interior of like Langley, which is located sary modifications. Other steps Mission Control. within the confines of Langley suggested were the possible ex- Air Force Base. There were no pansion of visitor information delays in the undertaking, and about the historic significance Relocation of the all parties have expressed satis- of the MCC, and the preparation variable density tunnel faction at the public interpreta- of a documentary record of the (1989) tion use of the structure. MCC according to the standards of the Secretary of the Inte- In 1989 NASA's Langley Re- rior. search Center initiated consult- Upgrading the In its response to the ation with the Virginia SHPO 25-foot space simulator Council's comments, NASA over plans to relocate their (1988) noted that while it must go for- landmark variable density wind tunnel from its original position The 25-foot space simulator ward with the planned modifica- was designated an NHL as part tions to the MCC, it will actively to a location elsewhere within the installation. Constructed in of DOl's 1984 "Man in Space" work to better educate the theme study. The simulator was public about the historic sig- the early 1920s for the National Advisory Committee for deemed an NHL because of its nificance of the MCC and con- engineering achievements in op- tinue to work with the Texas Aeronautics, predecessor of NASA, the variable density tun- tics, cryogenics, and vacuum SHPO. NASA also noted that it technology. Even today, the has established the Johnson nel was the first pressurized wind tunnel in the U.S. where simulator's collimator, an optical Space Center Historic Preserva- device which causes light to tion Committee to preserve high speed and high altitude aeronautical performance could form in parallel rays, and its original documentation and solar intensity simulation charac- equipment used in the MCC and be investigated. The tunnel remained in use, in various teristics are without peer. The that this information would be simulator has been used since made available to the Texas capacities and modifications, the 1960s to test satellites and SHPO. until it was declared unsafe in 1978. It has since been used other equipment intended for Analysis: Approximately two primarily for storage. space use. years elapsed between the time Following consultation with NASA planned to replace NASA initiated consultation with the Virginia SHPO, and an on- several aging components in the Texas SHPO and responded site visit with SHPO and Council order to maintain the simulator's to the Council's comments on staff. NASA determined that it vital testing capability. The im- the project. However, had would move the structure (a provements were necessaly to NASA been more familiar with large ovoid steel pressure tank) meet the more demanding the historic preservation from its existing location, to an specifications of current space process and included the Coun- outdoor area adjacent to the technology. NASA proposed to cil early in consultation, this Langley employee center and replace obsolete vacuum pumps with advanced

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION BALANCING HISTORICPRESERVATION NEEDS UTTH THE

cryogenic-type vacuum pumps, Analysis: The reasons for this any possible adverse effects refurbish the collimator mirror's delay appear to emanate from and the project proceeded. reflective surface, and install im- uncertainty on the part of the This case illustrates the proved solar-simulating lights SHPO about the nature of the problems that can occur a (the existing ones were nearly project's effects on the historic properly is designated as histori- 30 years old). The Council con- facility, and a heavy workload cally significant, but there is no curred in NASA's determination that interfered with more ex- common understanding about of no adverse effect for the refur- peditious consideration of the what elements of it contribute to bishment, although not before case. Since NASA was unclear that significance, what happens some delays took place in the in- about the SHPO's needs, the when alterations are necessary, itial consultation between NASA agency provided considerable or how it should be managed in and the California SHPO. additional documentation. general. The initial request for repairs Neither party was equipped to address the question of whether was received by the NASA Modification to facilities office in March 1988. or not the vacuum pumps instrument and control area, NASA requested SHPO com- should be considered sig- rocket engine test facility ment in April 1988. In June nificant historic equipment, or (1988) 1988, NASA requested Council whether some form of mitigation review of its determination of should be instituted for their In 1986, NASA's Lewis Re- NAE; concurrence was removal. Eventually, with the search Center in Cleveland, provided in July 1988. Thus, ap- Council participating, it became Ohio, initiated consultation with proximately four months had clear that some simple records the Ohio SHPO about plans to elapsed from the time NASA of the equipment being modify their rocket engine test began consultation. removed, including retention of facility, a NHL. Lewis planned original construction docu- to construct a new instrument ments, would suffice to remove

In 1989, NASA's Langley Research Center consulted with the Council underSection 106 before it moved its landmark variable density wind tunnelfrom the original location. This is an early photograph of the wind tunnel, built in the 1920s. OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 45

room within the test facility. As tendable, vertically adjustable, tributed to the Florida SHPO, the area proposed for the new horizontal steel structures lo- the Kennedy Space Center ar- instrument room contained only cated on each side of the tower, chives, and to USAF museums a locker room, shower and providing access to the missile at Cape Canaveral, Wright Pat- other service facilities, it was when positioned for launch. LC terson Air Force Base, and the determined that the project 13, constructed in 1956 for Eastern Space and Missile Cen- would not adversely affect ele- USAF's Atlas Missile Program, ter Historic Office at Patrick Air ments of the facility that con- is a listed property in the Cape Force Base in Florida. tribute to its landmark Canaveral Air Force Station significance. On May 2, 1988. NHL. Deactivated in 1978, it Analysis: This case is a good il- the Council received documen- remains USAF property. lustration of "normal" consult- tation describing the proposed Launch Complex 36, a NASA ation for these types of facilities. modifications from the chief of property currently operated by Each of the consulting parties Lewis' facilities engineering General Dynamics as a commer- agreed that it was in the public division. Shortly after, the Coun- cial venture for satellite launch, interest to proceed with the un- cil received the comments of has been determined to be dertaking, and further agreed the Ohio SHPO. After review of eligible for listing in the National that removal of one component the proposed modifications, on Register for its part in NASA's of an engineering structure May 26, the Council concurred AtlasICentaur rocket develop- could be mitigated through ap- with NASA's and the Ohio ment program. propriate recordation and ar- SHPO's no adverse effect deter- An MOA among NASA, chival retention of documents. mination, and the project USAF, the Council, and the proceeded. Florida SHPO was executed for Construction of the the project in 1988. Alternatives parking area, Analysis: There was no par- to the removal of the platforms Vehicle Assembly Building, ticular delay in the review of this from the NHL property included Launch Complex 39 undertaking, although NASA's the "no-build" alternative, as well (1985) initial discussions with the Ohio as constructing new platforms SHPO languished as NASA's for LC 36 while allowing those The massive Vehicle Assembly budget priorities changed. But on LC 13 to remain in place. Building (VAB) at Kennedy it does illustrate once again that Neither of these options was Space Center is a component of there was some question about feasible: the "no-build option the LC 39 NHL, the assembly the historic significance of the would not have enhanced the and launch site for the Apollo facility, and how a given project capability of LC 36, while the moon missions. In 1985, NASA might affect it. cost of new platforms would proposed to construct car park- have been prohibitive. As part ing facilities near the VAB to al- Removal of launch platform, of the measures to mitigate the leviate parking shortages Launch Complex 13 effects of platform removal on resulting from increased activity mobile service tower the NHL property. USAF would at the complex. NASA con- (1988) compile original "as built" draw- sidered several alternatives. ings of LC 13, along with con- The Florida SHPO determined In 1988, NASA and USAF in- temporary photographs, and that NASA's preferred alterna- itiated Section 106 review for prepare a narrative historical tive, one large parking facility, the General Dynamics Space description of the facility from would not adversely affect LC Systems Company's proposal its construction forward. NASA 39. to remove ten platforms from would do the same for LC 36. Accordingly, NASA re- the mobile service tower of This information would then be quested the comments of the Launch Complex (LC) 13 and in- given to the Secretary of the In- Council on August 22,1985. stall them on the mobile service terior for placement in the Na- After review of the project, the tower of LC 36 to enhance com- tional Historic Architectural and Council concurred in the no-ad- mercial satellite launch Engineering Records (HAER), at verse-effect determination capability. The platforms are ex- the Library of Congress, and dis- seven days later.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATTON 46 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

Analysis: Two members of the OFirst, Section llO(9, which properties' likely eligibility for Council staff visited Kennedy applies to NHLs, and Sec- the National Register. Space Center in July 1985 to dis- tion 106, which applies to To take a hypothetical ex- cuss how NASA was managing properties both included in ample, an agency proposes to KSC historic properties. The and eligible for inclusion in dismantle a rocket-launch tower parking lot project was dis- the National Register, are that has been designated as a cussed during this visit. It was very similar. NHL. Under both Sections 106 agreed that, although the and 110(9, as interpreted by proposed parking area was a Section 110(9 states that: Council regulations, the agency "normal" accretion that had little would be required to consider potential for affecting the his- Prior to the approval of any alternatives to the demolition in toric attributes of the LC 39 Federal undertakingwhich consultation with the Council. area, possible effects of some al- may directly and adversely the SHPO, and other interested ternatives on the Apollo crawler- affect any National Historic parties, to consider mitigation way or other original Landmark, the head of the measures, and to seek agree- components of the complex's responsible Federal agency ment on a plan balancing the plan warranted review. When shall, to the maximum ex- needs of historic preservation Council comments were re- tent possible, undertake against its mission require- quested by NASA, the Council such planning and actions ments. was able to quickly concur in as may be necessary to mini- If the same launch complex the proposal. mize harm to such had not been designated as an Landmark, and shall afford NHL, the agency, in consult- the Advisory Council on ation with the SHPO would first Historic Preservation a have to review the property to The regulatory reasonable opportunity to determine whether it was implications of comment on the undertak- eligible for the National "historic"designation ing. Register. If the property was deemed eligible the agency In the Council's experience with would then go through precisely The perception that the Section Section 1lO(9, which was 106 review process is lengthy the same steps as those out- added to the statute in 1980, lined above before reaching a and difficult derives from an in- there has been no reason to decision concerning further ac- correct series of assumptions deviate significantly from the tion. In other words, the prin- on the part of Federal agencies normal processes laid out in with regard to historic preserva- cipal management effect of the Council regulations. Section NHL listing is to save the agen- tion law. For example, NASA, 800.10 provides specific USAF, NSF, and various institu- cy the step of evaluating the his- guidance for review of actions torical significance of the tions receiving NSF grant funds affecting NHLs; the only addi- property. have expressed concern about tional provisions are that (1) the the ramifications of having their Of course, in view of the fact Council must be invited to be a that the "normal" age for a properties listed as NHLs, given consulting party when an ad- the requirements of Section 106 property's consideration for the verse effect to an NHL will Register is 50 years, relatively and 1lO(9 of NHPA. Three occur; and (2) NPS may be con- major points should be kept in few facilities important for sulted about the significance aerospace history under NASA mind with respect to these con- and effects on NHLs that would cerns. jurisdiction would be con- be adversely affected. sidered outside of specific DO1 It is to be expected that designation. While the Palomar management responsibilities as- Observatory did not begin sumed by agencies like NASA operation of its 200-inch tele- and USAF for NHLs would be lit- scope until the late 1940s, its tle different from those already mirror, which took 12 years to assumed as a result of the grind and polish, was cast in the

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 47

mid-1930s; the telescope mirror, toric preservation concerns measures that would eliminate, at least, is over 50 years old, but can be accommodated lessen, or mitigate impacts to its historical achievements in within the agency's mission historic properties. In past Sec- astronomv. .~0stdate 1948. rwuirements. tion 106 cases involvina scientific and technical facilities, as u~econd,given the level of with many undertakings the activity of some agencies it Council reviews, it was not is probable that many un- Summary Discussion feasible to radically alter the dertakings have the poten- agency's original plans simply tial to affect historic to "preserve" historic properties. properties. Few of these Alternatives to The Section 106 process, undertakings, however, are rather, explored practical adjust- brought to the attention of proposed actions ments that could be made to SHPOs or the Council. In all of the Section 106 cases preserve essential information n~hird,it should be em- described above, the outcome, about the facility. In some in- phasized that when consult- or resolution, designed to stances, such as Apollo Mission ing with agencies under balance the Federal agency's Control, enhanced public inter- Sections 106 and 110(f), ongoing mission with the preser- pretation was a goal. In these the Council does not see it- vation of elements of its physi- cases, one common mitigation self as the proponent of cal historic legacy was measure was recordation, the preservation over fulfill- achieved through consultation compiling of information allow- ment of agency missions. with the relevant SHPO and in ing for an accurate physical or, The Council perceives its some cases, the Council. Coun- more commonly, paper, role as one of working with cil involvement took the form of reconstruction. agencies to ensure that his- reviewing alternatives and

Construction of the parking area at Kennedy Space Center's VehicleAssembly Building Launch Complex 39, war the subject of Section 106 review in 1985. 48 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

Effects of modifcations result in the loss of qualities that mation to the SHPO and the on hktoric facilities distinguish them as NHLs. Council. Modifications that result in a It is the Council's experience, This chapter has described a historic property's loss of in- as reported to Congress in ap- variety of Federal undertakings tegrity can have a beneficial ef- propriations and regulations ef- at scientific/technological fect, however, if those fectiveness hearings, that SHPO facilities, ranging from the instal- modifications result in the con- and Council delays in respond- lation of ancillary facilities such tinued use of a facility or struc- ing to agencies often stem from as parking lots, to the construc- ture. A case in point is Launch nonadherence to, or tion of new buildings near his- Complex 39 at Kennedy Space misunderstanding of, Council toric properties, to Center. Launch of the space regulations. Usually, either the modifications of historic shuttle required extensive chan- information specified in Council facilities or pieces of equipment. ges to this National Register reguiations [36 CFR 5 800.81 is In cases where an obsolete or property where the Apollo moon not provided by the agency, unused facility is "cannibalized" shots lifted off during the late which results in delays because for parts, such as the removal of 1960s and early 1970s. Chan- the material must be requested, launch platforms from USAF ges were required to keep the or the agency does not initiate Launch Complex 13 for reuse at complex in good working order. consultation with the SHPO in NASA's complex 36, there is a Likewise, proposed changes to the early planning stages when clearly deleterious effect to the one of the frontline astronomical the project, the historic proper- integrity of the original facility. observatories would presuma- ties involved, and the alterna- The act of component removal bly be intended to keep it on the tives to existing plans can be and reuse elsewhere can initiate cutting edge of science and fully considered. a process whereby a facility is thus in excellent functioning There have also been delays, completely cannibalized for its order. This report has em- as in the case of the 25-foot parts. However, this is standard phasized this sort of 'trade-off" space simulator at JPL (above), engineering practice at such in several places: active facilities where the SHPO was unable to facilities, and always has been. must constantly evolve if they review NASA's proposed action Likewise, the complete renova- are to continue to make scien- given their limited under- tion of the flight control rooms tific or engineering advance- standing of what they were at Johnson Space Center ments. Under the right being asked to judge. This resulted in the loss of some circumstances, this process can problem has been exacerbated original furnishings and equip- result in the historic property's in part by fuzzy statements of ment from Apollo Mission Con- presewation. significance in historic property trol. Once again, these evaluations conducted by NPS. changes are perceived by -- - Problems with agency NASA as natural and necessary. 7he timing of misunderstanding of NHPA and While "preservation through hktoric preservation rwiew the Council's regulations are recordation" was implemented decreasing, a result, in part, of to retain essential information Council regulations set forth better comprehension of the about these facilities, visitors deadlines for SHPO and Coun- Federal preservation process by were denied the opportunity to cil response to Federal agency agency officials. The appoint- experience the facility first hand. requests. In most situations, ment of agency Federal preser- Video or film documentation the SHPO and Council have 30 vation officers in accordance might help to meet this need if days to respond, if the agency with Section 110(c) of NHPA done more systematically for has carried out its respon- has contributed somewhat, as preservation record purposes. sibilities as set forth in the has a general move toward ear- Modifications to NHLs like reguiations. This would include lier discussions with the SHPO. those described at Lewis Re- making early contact with the Nevertheless, the perception search Center and the VAB at SHPO, carrying out the ap- that delays still cited by some KSC, on the other hand, did not propriate identification steps, Federal agencies are the in- and submitting necessary infor- evitable result of compliance

SORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES

with Federal historic preserva- so long as those procedures stitution were asked to tion law has continued to serve provide reasonable oppor- photograph a historic facility as a justification for occasional tunities for the public to learn prior to its modlication or to as- attempts to win exemption from about proposed Federal actions semble historic documents for compliance. Uncertainty about and to contribute to the permanent archival purposes. the historical significance of decisionmaking process. Institutions with limited staffs facilities, and how agency ac- The Council has issued would have to devote a sig- tions are affecting historic guidance entitled Public Par- nificant portion of resources to values, will continue to provide ticipation in Section 106 administer the process by grist for these concerns Review: A Guide for Agency Off- preparing written justifications wherever properties not tradi- cials (1989) to guide agencies for alterations to historic tionally recognized to be his- in ensuring that the public has facilities and meeting with the toric are under discussion. the opportunity to make its SHPO and others to discuss views known in Federal projects projects. Plans would be com- subject to Section 106 review. pleted at considerable direct The 'bublic" nature One of the principal concerns and indirect cost. of the Section 106process of scientists interviewed was that the Section 106 process When the Council revised its could establish a precedent for regulations in 1986, it public review of scientific re- strengthened the role assigned search proposals. Scientists to the public in the Section 106 believe this might occur in two process. The reasoning behind ways: either by using historic this decision was that local preservation issues to dictate citizens were typically most af- the kinds of research carried out fected when Federal activities at functioning historically sig- impact historic properties and nificant facilities or by continu- therefore, should have a say in ing to expand the public the Section 106 process. Addi- participation provisions of Coun- tionally, it was recognized that cil regulations to allow public public and local or regional or- comment on competing re- ganizations could often provide search proposals. The first assistance to the Federal agen- could create problems if not cy in identifying and evaluating properly monitored; the second historic properties and in deter- would impinge upon the estab- mining appropriate treatments lished method of peer review in for them. The Council's im- determining scientific merit. plementing regulations list several categories of "interested persons," ranging from The costs municipalities, owners of af- of historic preservation fected lands and Indian tribes, to preservation organizations A final concern raised by scien- and the general public, who tists and managers had to do may play a role in the preserva- with the expense of historic tion process, depending on the preservation activities. Clearly, degree of their legal interest in there is an administrative cost to the historic property. The Coun- historic preservation that is fre- cil encourages Federal agen- quently hidden in large Federal cies to use their existing agency budgets; it becomes procedures for public participa- more apparent and obvious if, tion in the Section 106 process, for example, an academic in-

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERV Figure 12. - Sc'iematir :liarlram of '-to IU~SciorlitZcro-Gravity Facility. CHAPTER 6: Preservation/facility mission options available to achieve balance

This chapter describes and as- Much of this information was are preparing to retire. They sesses in detail programs active- gathered during Council staff wish to see their respective ly concerned with the protection field visits to installations as part agencies better recognized for and enhancement of America's of this study. On these visits, their scientific contributions by scientific and technological the staff noticed that many of future generations. heritage within Federal agen- the people attending the meet- Congress specifically re- cies. It also reviews various op- ing~were scientists and quested that this study consider tions available to agencies that managers who entered the Federal agencies connected can prese~eand capitalize on workforce in the two decades with the "Man in Space" and their respective scientific after World War II, entering their "Astronomy and Astrophysics" legacies and assist in the mitiga- agencies on the "ground flool" themes. The following discus- tion of effects when historically in the 1950s and 1960s. These sion, therefore, addresses exist- significant facilities are people, who are extremely ing programs for the upgraded. knowledgeable and proud of enhancement of historic proper- their agencies' achievements, ties in these two areas. Other

Recordation and educafionalprogramsfor the public are huo of fhepreservafionopfions available lo agencies fltaf own historic scienfijicproperjies. The schematic diagram at lefl documenfsthe NHL zero-gravity research facility at NASA's Lewis Research Facility in Clevelartd. The visitor's center af fhe John C. Sfertnis Space Center in Mississippi interprets hisforic space-related events.

ADVlSORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATTON 52 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

programs are considered for rather than spaceflight, space Other Federal agencies, for comparative purposes as science, or other operational example DOD and DOE,current- needed. program areas per se. Thus, ly have or are instituting the associate administrator for programs for the management management signed the PA on of their historic properties. behalf of NASA, although active Since 1984, Army has had in Range of agency programs program operations decisions place a regulation [AR 420.401 to protect and enhance and priorities clearly drive which requires the development historic properties facilities management needs. and implementation of a historic NASA's PA, however, covers preservation plan at each instal- only those historic properties lation; several installations, in- Identification and formally determined by the cluding Fort Monroe in Virginia, maintenance of historic Secretary of the Interior to be the Presidio in California, Fort scientific and technological historically significant at the na- Sheridan in Illinois, and Fort tional level. These 20 NHLs Leavenworth in Kansas, are properties were identified in the NPS "Man NHLs. Many other military in- All Federal agencies have in Space" study and included in stallations contain at least some programs and procedures for the PA. The agreement does historic properties. These plans the maintenance, repair, and not contain provisions for the would identify and evaluate upgrading of their real property ongoing identification, evalua- potentially historic areas, includ- and facilities. At the installation tion, and treatment of properties ing buildings, structures, ob- level, this is usually handled potentially eligible for the Nation- jects, and archeological sites, through an office of facilities al Register of Historic Places. and provide guidelines for their management, planning, or real Archeological sites, for ex- consideration in future develop- estate. In most cases, it is the ample, occasionally are iden- ment of the base. Likewise, responsibility of these offices to tified as subject to effect on DOE is working toward develop- initiate the Section 106 review NASA lands during the Section ment of comprehensive cultural process when rehabilitation or 106 process. Other properties resource management plans for new construction is planned to may meet the National Register its installations, most of which ensure the protection of historic criteria that have not been ex- contain properties historically properties under the amined through this particular significant for their role in highly organization's care. NHL theme. scientific and technological re- The PA between NASA, the By comparison, NSF only search, e.g., Los Alamos Nation- Council, and NCSHPO sets provides grants for scientific real Laboratory in New Mexico forth a process by which NASA search. In this capacity, it direct- and Oak Ridge National will 'Take into account" the ef- ly manages no historic Laboratory in Tennessee. fects of its projects on its NHL- properties. With the recognition status properties. The that its grant support could agreement lists the kinds of ac- result in effects on important his- Institutional histories tivities that have the potential to toric properties, however, NSF and thepopularpress alter characteristics of NHL began discussions with the properties, and are thus subject Council earlier this year on a PA As mentioned in Chapter 5. to the agreement, and sets forth for its research grants many Federal agencies have on a consultation process to programs. A logical focus was staff official historians and/or ar- resolve disputes that may arise on grants for astronomical and chivists whose duties are to between the need to proceed astrophysical research where compile and provide historical with a project as originally such funds might be used to information on the agency and proposed and the responsibility alter the character and use of to manage repositories of infor- to protect the landmark proper- historic observatories and mation generated by the agen- ty. NASA views these issues as laboratories. Negotiations were cy in the past. Additionally, facilities management concerns still in process at the completion prominent agencies such as of this report. NASA, the branches of DOD,

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISI'OIUC PRESERVAllON OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 53

and prominent individual KSC suggests that the public is Smithsonian Institution (SI), and Federal programs, e.g., the Man- intensely interested in the space many private scientific institu- hattan Project, have been sub- program and its history, and tions that receive Federal assis- jects of official and unofficial wants not only to read about tance for research, e.g., histories. but to see, examples of NASA's Cal-Tech's Palomar Obser- While these personnel and accomplishments. vatory, contain museums where the written histories they and the physical components of sig- others produce assist in presetv- nificant scientific and technologi- ing agencies' official past, there Public information centers, cal achievements are on is little evidence that these as- museums and di~plays display. The degree of institu- sets are fully utilized with regard tional support these museums to preserving and promulgating Virtually all major Federal scien- receive from the Federal Govern- the historic significance of their tific installations maintain a ment varies greatly. Sl's Nation- scientific and technological public information centerloffice al Air and Space Museum and facilities. In many instances, the or visitor information center the museum and visitor's center more technical historical where the interested public and at KSC are excellent examples aspects of a particular project the press can obtain information of government-owned museum may still be classified for nation- on the workings of the installa- facilities where science and al security reasons. In others, tion. The available information, technology are preeminent. SI the political and administrative however, varies in detail accord- is America's national museum, history of an agency program ing to the nature of the work car- and it has a formal agreement gives short shrift to scientific or ried out there. For example, all with NASA for the acquisition of engineering accomplishments. NASA installations contain "artifacts, many with great his- It is the more popular publica- visitor information facilities; be- torical value and others with tions, such as Invention and cause many of its activities are great value for educational, ex- Technology or Omni, that pro- constantly in the public eye, its hibition, and other purposes, vide typically indepth informa- visitor displays and pamphlets relating to the development, tion about America's scientific typically contain a wealth of in- demonstration, and application heritage in a format accessible formation. Further, a significant of aeronautical and astronauti- to the general public. amount of public relations cal science and technology of Still, as any museum-goer material dating to the early days flight." The museum at Palomar knows, there is a major dif- of the space program is still Obsetvatory, on the other hand, ference between reading about available if one knows where to contains no artifacts or equip- historically important scientific look and whom to contact. On ment; it instead features several events and viewing their physi- the other hand, the DOE Los photographic displays of its dis- cal components. The major Alamos National Laboratory, coveries along with a British focus of and primary reason for where much of America's Broadcasting Corporation video this report is to determine how nuclear weapons research is on the construction and opera- Federal agencies can preserve carried out, is historically sig- tion of the 200-inch Hale Tele- the physical reminders of their nificant, but since much of the scope which is narrated by the scientific past while at the same research conducted there is British astronomer and popular time conducting their respective classified, little substantive infor- author Patrick Moore. Film is missions. Kennedy Space Cen- mation about the lab's specific an excellent medium for inter- ter (KSC) provides an excellent achievements is available to the pretation in such instances. example of why this subject is public. Falling somewhere between important. Approximately 2.5 One manner in which scien- these extremes are facilities like million people visited last year tific research installations pro- the Alabama Space and Rocket to view the physical manifesta- vide historical information to the Center (S&RC) in Huntsville. tions of the National space pro- public is through their Alabama, adjacent to the Mar- gram that they had seen on museums. NASA facilities, most shall Space Flight Center. Mar- television and in photographs. DOE nuclear research facilities, shall maintains a visitor's center The large number of visitors to many military installations, the at the S&RC and contributes

'ISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 54 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

material for displays but the ac- locate and archive copies of tual museum is owned and Measures to mitigate shop drawings for their historic operated by the State of the effect of mission needs facilities. These could be Alabama through a combination on historic properties developed in consultation with of State and private funds. NPS's Historic American En- S&RC offers bus tours of Council regulations are gineering Record (HAER); Marshall's facilities, including or- designed to explore ways to locate and archive ganized visits to several build- "avoid or reduce effects on his- photographs and video or ings and facilities where toric properties that meet both movie footage of facilities at ongoing research is being con- the needs of the undertaking various stages of use over the ducted. However, during the and preservation concerns" 136 years; Council staff's visit there for the CFR § 800.3(a)]. From a preser- prominently display and purpose of this study, the staff vation point of view, the most ef- got the distinct impression that fective course of action is to describe the many scale models of historic structures, there was room for NASA itself design the undertaking so as to to take a more active role in completely avoid affecting the facilities, and hardware which public outreach. historic property. As this report some agencies, at least, appear NASA also is active in emphasizes, this is rarely to have in abundance. These promoting basic science educa- feasible. Within the institutional scale models were often con- tion through its Teacher structure of Federal scientific structed by the agency or by Resource Centers and has and technological agencies. the contractor who built the mobile facilities to reach areas however, there exists a variety facility; of the country not convenient to of ways, currently not fully util- I locate, catalog, and archive a NASA installation. ized, through which the histori- technical printed materials for The NPS report, Man in cal significance of scientific the various scientific projects Space: Study of Alternatives, dis- advancements can be more ef- and programs. NASA cusses NASA and Army NHL fectively conveyed to the public. generated a massive amount of facilities with regard to visitor in- If these techniques were fully these materials during the Apol- formation and education poten- employed, the effects of neces- lo program, for example; tial in detail, suggesting various sary changes to scientific locate, preserve, and archive alternatives, with complete fund- facilities and structures could be film footage and data from ing through which the history of more effectively mitigated and selected scientific tests and re- America's space efforts could historical values enhanced. search programs that relate to be better conveyed to the the "Man in Space" historic public. As outlined in Chapter theme. For example, each en- 7,these national and site- Range of ginelstructure test at the Mar- specific museum facilities are mitigation measures shall Space Flight Center was one of the most important filmed for review and analysis; means through which scientific A great variety of mitigation and technological facilities can measures can assist (and have r provide better support for present historical information to been utilized in the past) in museums associated with the public and, therefore, assist preserving imporlant informa- scientific and technological in- in the preservation of historically tion about facilities and struc- stitutions. Increased funding to significant elements of their tures that must be altered or facilitate collection-develop- scientific legacy. However, they removed altogether. These ment in the above areas, in addi- need to be linked to onsite measures would not necessarily tion to scientific and preservation and public access impede the scientific and tech- technological objects, is vital. where that remains a nological missions. For ex- provide increased support reasonable and viable option. ample, Federal agencies and for the existing offices of agen- federally assisted organizations cy historians and archivists, could: and financially support the in-

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFICFACILITIES

creased dissemination of his- method to preserve some ele- torical documentation and offi- ments of our scientific heritage. cia1 agency histories, already In terms of the implementa- available but little known out- tion of such measures, the ques- side the agency;-. tion of short-term cost, while a encourage increased private legitimate concern for both and public participation in an ef- public agencies and private in- fort to preserve America's scien- stitutions, should not be the tific and technological past. central focus of discussion. A Participation could take many more important issue concerns forms. The National Oceanic how such measures should be and Atmospheric Administration pursued over the long-term, and (NOAA), for example, conveyed how they can be incorporated the Gaithersburg Latitude Ob- into a general management servatory, an NHL observatory, strategy for preserving the to the City of Gaithersburg for nation's scientific and technical use as a museum and inter- heritage. Current treatment of pretative center. Organizations historic highly technological like the American Astronomical facilities tends to be piecemeal, Society, and the U.S. Space "compiiance"directed, and in- Society could become increas- sufficiently integrated with other ingly involved in the determina- management concerns and tion of what parts of the Nation's needs. Simply selecting the scientific heritage are worthy of most inexpensive or most pas- retention in the first place. sive "mitigation" measures, such as photographic recordation, I integrate consideration for will neither meet the long-term those significant structures and preservation needs, nor the facilities that may be affected by stewardship responsibilities, of an agency's project or program the Federal agencies involved. very early in mission planning. As described in the next, final chapter of this analysis, a balanced but comprehensive approach is needed to best serve Problems in the public interest. implementation

These are just a few of the mitigation measures that could preserve the essential historical significance of science and technology facilities that must be modified in the future. As this report has stressed, there is no legal requirement for preservation of historically important artifacts. Permanent retention of existing records and data of scientific facilities, as well as access to them by the interested public, would be a cost-effective

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATTON

CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and recommendations

The central theme of this - The 1940s and the early 1950s analysis is the notion that a Conclusions were characterized by unprece- balance must be struck be- dented scientific and technologi- tween the needs of active scien- n~lthou~hthe current num- cal achievement. As physical tific and technological facilities ber of properties recog- vestiges of those national and the need to preserve the nized as significant for achievements reach the 50-year physical evidence of America's historic scientific and tech- threshold typically used to deter- scientific heritage. Preceding nological achievements is mine historic significance under chapters have described the fairly small, it is likely to in- NHPA, the pool of historically particular requirements of re- crease as the era of World significant scientific and tech- search organizations, investigat- War II and its immediate nological properties may in- ing the foundations of their aftermath continues to crease dramatically. At the apprehensions about complying recede into the past. same time, continued advances with Federal historic oreserva-

The Section 106 reviewprocess isflexible enough to accommodate the legitimate needs of the scientific and engineering community. The preseme4 now-inactive Redstone test stand at Marshall is regularly visited by bus tours fmnt the Alabama Space and Rocker Center, left. Such public interpretive use may be inappropriatefor active research facilities such as Goddard Space Flight Center's magnetic test facility, also an NHL.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRE5ERVAlTON 58 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

in science and technology over process requires an un- m~hescientific community in the next decade and beyond usual degree of flexibility in some cases has displayed into the twenty-first century can the planning and execution unfamiliarity with the re- be expected to increase pres- of research work. quirements of NHPA, and sures on scientists, engineers, appears to perceive a and managers to remove or It is difficult in many cases for threat of extended delays alter historic facilities in order to scientists to state explicitly what and other problems where keep those facilities up-to-date effects proposed projects might there is little direct support- to meet changing technologies have on historic properties. Re- ing experience. and uses. search plans evolve and change during the research process; Despite the fact that Federal O~heassumption expressed therefore, it may be impossible agencies have been subject to by some that the require to specify precisely the conse- historic preservation statutes for ments of the National His- quences of their work with at least 24 years, relatively few toric Preservation Act are regard to physical effects on his- cases involving effects on highly fine for road construction toric equipment or facilities. technical properties have gone or urban redevelopment OHistoric preservation con- through Section 106 review. but inappropriate tor scien- Most Federal agencies and tific research and develop- cerns can and should be accommodated ex- scientific research organizations ment must be rejected. involved with historic scientific peditiously in a way that and technical facilities do not Scientific research and the focuses on the extremely space program are indeed im- small percentage of fully understand the fine points portant national priorities, but Federal or federally as- of the Federal historic preservation review process as set forth they are not necessarily more sisted projects that might important than other national have adverse effects on under Section 106, much less appreciate how it could be in- priorities such as rebuilding na- highly significant and his- tional infrastructure or providing toric facilities. tegrated more effectively into affordable housing to their respective programs. Americans. Federal agencies PAS, or other mechanisms, that Some scientists and facilities and scientific research organiza. provide for tailoring of the "nor- managers, unless they have had tions have an obligation to ad- mal" Section 106 process to the direct experience with historic dress the requirements of NHPA special needs of active, opera- preservation project review in in the course of carrying out tional facilities should be pur- the past, continue to assume their primary missions. in the sued with relevant agencies. To that Federal "historic presewa- case of Federal agencies the extent that the regulations tion laws" mandate historic owning historically significant and procedures implementing preservation, i.e., the un- properties, these agencies have NHPA and the application of his- qualified retention of historically an important stewardship role toric preservation concepts can significant properties. Section for our collective cultural be fine tuned to meet the 106 mandates that historic heritage that they are obligated legitimate needs of the affected values be considered in overall to recognize and address. agencies, this should be done. planning for a project or pro- Among other things, PAS can gram; any decision concerning u~espitethe conclusion that provide for stricter time limits on preservation is made only after scientific research and review and consultation that can preservation values have been high technology operations meet concerns about expediting weighed against other values. should be considered no agency decisionmaking where There is no Federal law that re- differently from other na- necessary. quires retention of any historic tional priorities with regard property. to applicability of historic This perception was apparent preservation law, there is in Council negotiations with validity to the notion that NASA about their PA. It also the scientific research has been a factor in discussions

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERA TION OF HIGHLY TECHNICRL OR SCIENTIFICFACILITIES 59

with NSF over an agreement timated. Effects on historic yet they frequently overlook an covering their support of obser- properties are not as easily obvious way to elevate it vatories. A fuller understanding measured. In addition, agen- through historic preservation. of the Section 106 review cies often assert that the limited History and science are not in- process and its intended out- budget available for performing herently incompatible. On the come could make for greater ap- their primary "mission" automat- contraly, by preserving instruc- preciation on the part of some ically relegates historic preserva- tive physical evidence of the Federal agencies concerning tion to a minor role in their Apollo lunar program, among the possible historic sig- overall program. NASA, with its others, scientists and their agen- nificance of programs they have visitor centers and aggressive cies secure the means to supported. It could also institu- public affairs program, is a memorialize heroic achieve- tionalize consideration for his- notable exception. ments of this era long after toric values in the future within This general Federal agency generational memory has those agencies. oerceotion. however. cou~led dimmed. Familiaritv with this kith the tendency toview'his- with some notable excep- rich scientific legacy will un- toric facilities as simply the func- tions, historic preservation doubtedly encourage young tional engineering structures is rarely seen as a people to seek careers in that enabled significant events, mechanism for meeting science and technology. tends to devalue the historic sig- other agency objectives. At the local level, facilities nificance of a given facility. Too often, it tends instead and equipment of recognized Practical advantages associated to be viewed primarily 8s a historic significance can help with historic site status may also "compliance problem." educate communities and their be sacrificed. For example, it is elected officials about unique The provisions of NHPA apply possible that facilities formally concerns of sensitive, high-tech- to all Federal agencies of the Ex- recognized as "historic" may be nology installations, such as the ecutive Branch. As one piece of better protected against the need for low levels of municipal Federal environmental legisla- vagaries of agency budget cuts lighting near a telescope, or for tion, it can be compared to the or outside development pres- local zoning ordinances that National Environmental Policy sures, although there is conflict- could help restrict electromag- Act (NEPA)--a Federal policy ing evidence on this point. netic interference from solid aimed at the full airing and con- The tendency to view the waste disposal sites. These in- sideration of environmental is- provisions of NHPA as merely stallations should be a source of sues and, in the context of one more hurdle in the race pride, not the breeding ground project decisions, with the result toward "environmental for local conflicts. The natural of more informed planning and clearance" results in a loss of civic pride that accompanies im- decisionmaking. However, dis- considerable public relations portant and historic research cussions with a variety of value. For example. the good facilities is not typically ex- Federal managers for this study will that could be generated by ploited in an effective manner. and direct experience by the a concerted effort to preserve in Los Alamos laboratories and Council staff suggests that place and present to the public Kennedy Space Center are many affected Federal agencies structures illustrative of the mag- notable exceptions; they are believe the goals of the Federal nitude of the moon landing ef- also the major employers in preservation program to be too fort could help convey the their locales. message that the kinds of nebulous to be incorporated Council regulations and into a coherent environmental problems that NASA is currently experiencing with the Shuttle the Section 106 review program. Wetlands, for ex- process are flexible enough ample, can be analyzed, as- and the Hubble telescope are in- to accommodate the sessed, and even replaced in evitable effects of complicated scientific and engineering en- legitimate needs of the some instances; water quality scientific and engineering can be determined; threatened deavors. Scientists rightly community and their ac- wildlife populations can bees- deplore the mediocre national standard of scientific education. tivities at historic facilities.

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 60 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

Generally, grants for projects vatory or the University of modifications would not be ad- using existing physical plans Chicago at Yerkes Observatory, verse. without modifications do not should not produce adverse ef- These conclusions incor- take the form of undertakings fects. On the other hand, a plan porate both the concept of within the meaning of Section affecting the integr'Ry of one of materiality, i.e., the quantity of 106 and, therefore, will be the major instruments at either change proposed, and the con- spared review. Similarly, work of these institutions could be a cept of quality, i.e., change of

Thepreservatiorr communitj must gain a deeper understanding ofthe role various facilities and structures, such as the propulsion and structural test facilitj at Marshall Space Flight Center, played in the advancement of scienfifcresearch. that only modifies existing equip- significant Section 106 issue. character or use, as opposed to ment will have little if any effect; Material alterations to buildings the natural, ongoing change either no Section 106 review housing scientific facilities, par- and improvement to and in would be required or a sum- ticularly if the structure's ex- structures or equipment as they mary finding of no effect would terior or interior is well-known, are continually subjected to satisfy compliance require- would affect that facility; never- minor change while they con- ments. Telescope improve- theless, unless there were major tinue to function for their ments envisioned by institutions changes to an important piece original purpose. like the California Institute of of scientific architecture such Technology at Palomar Obser-

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVAVON OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 61

UAIIparties involved in deter- servatory in California, played in kind of object that could easily mining the future of the advancement of scientific re- be overlooked when discussing America's historic scientific search, if they are to determine the preservation of man-in- equipment and facilities how best to communicate this space efforts, but it excites the need to have a thorough to the public. Given the various interest of a child. Detailed understanding of what roles these facilities played both printed information about rocket makes them significant and behind-the-scenes and in the design, NASA missions, and why. public eye, how can this be hardware is also valuable, and presented? Should every his- at the facilities visited for the pur- A clear understanding of the torically significant object be poses of this study, it was ap- significance of a facility, struc- preserved simply because it parent that this material was ture, or object is vital to the dis- may be a unique or rare product quite popular with visitors to cussion of preservation options. of science and technology,-. e.g.,- these sites. This understanding, which a new space suit, or a Mercury Decisions about projects should be predicated on agree- Capsule? These questions that may affect historic ment about exactly what is his- need to be addressed as part of properties need to be made toric, is necessary if a a developing consensus. with as complete an under- consensus on how best to con- Discussions with Smith- standing as possible of vey that significance to future sonian Institution and other such effects. However, generations of Americans is to museum staff as a part of this considerations of preserva- be reached. study are instructive. These dis- tion options should be kept This degree of understanding cussions indicate that scientific distinct from the peer is equally important for mem- development of computers, review process of awarding bers of the historic preservation cameras, and other technologi- research grants and the community, scientists, and cally important but less determination of research managers. The latter can and prominent components of priorities central to the should take a more active role space vehicles are of great inter- scientific research process. inasmuch as they are often in a est to the oublic. However, if better position to grasp and their impact is to be maximized, Scientists fear that the impact a help judge the historic impor- these objects must be inter- proposed research project may tance of their own facilities. preted with reference to their his- have on historic properties ul- O~hehistoric preservation toric context and development timately will be considered in community needs to work and, where possible, with il- determining the project's scien- with the scientific and en- lustrations of how their develop- tific value. This, in turn, sug- gineering communities to ment directly or indirectly gests that non-scientists could gain a better understanding currently affects the average per- have a major impact on what of how best to ensure the son. The National Museum of kind of research is carried out, American History's new per- appreciation of the histori- and where. There is a real con- cally significant scientific manent exhibi, 'The lnforma- cern on the part of the scientific facilities, as well as any as- tion Age," illustrates this community that nonscientific is- sociated historically sig- principle. Under the rubric of sues will either cloud the scien- nificant objects those space exploration, people want tific worth of a proposed activity facilities created. to see and touch actual objects or result in changes that will that have been into space--be make the research less effective The preservation community they capsules, rockets, or comprehensive. must gain a deeper under- spacesuits, or more mundane These two issues, the scien- standing of the role various rocks from the moon's surface. tific value of a research activity facilities and structures, e.g., People also are interested in the and the considerations of effect the Propulsion and Structural everyday life of astronauts, in- to historic properties, should be Test Facility at Marshall Space cluding their routine activities. kept separate and distinct. The Flight Center, or the Wilson Ob- An actual sleeping hammock Section 106 process is ideally used in the space shuttle is the

8VISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 62 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

designed to reach a consensus ate aftermath of an activty; the designed to record the oral his- on accommodating historic key is to ensure their presefva- tories of important programs preservation concerns as an action and accessibility beyond like the manned space program, tiviy proceeds; it begins with a that activity's completion. Scien- the relevant agencies should bias toward allowing the activity tists who are conscious of their capitalize on the knowledge and to go ahead. The law states unique responsibility as inter- experience of this group while that agencies must 'take into ac- preters of the past will ensure these individuals are available. count" the effects of their under- that important remnants of past takings on historic properties. eventsare not lost. To the ex- and afford the Council a tent that this kind of consefvator- reasonable opportunity to com- ship is already done for the Recommendations ment on those effects. It does benefit of scholars seeking to not mandate preservationlreten- verify or understand past re- u~olicyand legislation tion but requires only that search, for public information, I The Council strongly recom- preservation values be con- or public relations purposes, mends that Congress not enact sidered in decisions that would this will not impose an addition- legislation providing exemp alter or harm historic properties. al burden on agencies' or tions from or waivers of the ad- This should not be construed by facilities' resources. ministration of the national the historic preservation com- Throughout the Federal historic preservation program munity as a license to scrutinize Government, the current person- for the benefit of specific and rewrite research plans and nel designated to serve as Federal agencies or programs. decisions much less to open Federal Presewation Officers Such statutory exemptions and them to public debate. (or the equivalent) in accord- waivers set a dangerous prece- ance with Section 110(c) of n~ederalagencies engaged dent because they are inconsis- NHPA often have insufficient extent with sound management of in scientific research pertise or training in historic should better acknowledge our nation's historic resources, preservation. Typically they per- and they discourage agencies their responsibilities as form their preservation function stewards of America's from negotiating with the Coun- in a small amount of time taken cil for flexible, mutually accept- scientific heritage and from their other duties. They strengthen their tangible able programmatic agreements have inadequate staff to assist tailored to the agencies' needs. commitment to preserving them, and limited additional the Nation's scientific Because of the flexibility built resources. As indicated in pre- legacy. into the national historic preser- vious Council reports to Con- vation program, no Federal Inasmuch as scientists are gress, including the Regulations agency, and specifically no potentially among the best Effectiveness Report (January agency concerned with operat- judges of the historic value of 1990), this should be corrected. ing scientific institutions and their enterprises, it may be pos- n~heintellectual resources facilities, has made a per- sible to instill more interest in of the scientists and suasive case for needing a preservation in those scientists managers who have recent- legislative exemption or waiver. who work in historic facilities. In- ly retired or are nearing These interventions in the estab- deed, future generations may retirement is an asset that lished and flexible historic be better served through en- the Federal government preservation processes are in- couraging scientists to take an should not overlook. active preservation role than by consistent with the fundamental imposing additional layers of Whether through soliciting assis- principle of the NHPA and third-party control on managers tance from such individuals in detrimental to the sound and ef- of facilities. Plans, maps, illustra- developing visitor centers or dis- fective management of the tive models, and other by- plays or through more formal nation's historic resources. products of historic events are projects supported by the Smith- usually on hand in the immedi- sonian Institution and others

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 63

Future scientific achievement tures, projects and programs. ministrative procedures for his- as well as an adequate sewing This will ensure that the public toric presewation, paying close of the public interest Is depend- will know where to look and attention to mechanisms they ent on an understanding of, and who to talk to find the informa- currently have in place for meet- excitement for, past scientific tion they need. ing their responsibilities toward successes and failures. There not only NHLs but also proper- rn Other than NASA, which al- ties that are efigible for or listed fore, to the exYent that they do ready does quite a bit in this on the National Register of His- not already exist in agency area, Federal agencies also toric Places. The Council programs, future authorizations need to strengthen their public should recommend measures for major scientific and tech- outreach programs, through in- to improve the effectiveness, nological programs should increased direct and indirect sup clude public education porr to internal or associated consistency, and coordination of those procedures with the components that focus in part museums. on the communication of the purposes of NHPA, as relevant history of science. I Federal agencies and preser- prescribed by Section vationists need to assess how 202(a)(6). I The Advisory Council on His- future presewation needs can I The Advisory Council on His- toric Presewation should take be met more effectively through toric Preservation, in coopera- the lead in developing and sub- publiclprivate sector cooperation with the Smithsonian scribing to a statement of policy tion. Private corporations Institution and NPS, should that acknowledges the sensitive engaged in research and foster better communication be- relationship between the development activities have tween the presewation and progress of scientific research made substantial contributions and the evolving history of to the presewation and histori- museum community and Federal agencies with the aim science and its physical cal documentation of their own of establishing a consensus manifestations. Such a state- heritage, both through funding concerning the kinds of ment could take the form of a support and active preservation facilities and objects that policy memorandum signed by of their own historic structures should be physically preserved the Chairman of the Council, and equipment. Many recent the National Park Service, the exhibits at the Smithsonian In- and those that could be National Conference of State stitution and other museums '@resewed"through documentation. Historic Preservation Officers, devoted to scientific and tech- and various agency heads that nological themes are largely un- I Scientific and technological could lay the groundwork for fu- derwrinen by corporate agencies need to examine ture consultation on specific sponsors, andlor feature his- whether their institutional struc- cases orprograms. toric artifacts donated by these ture is such that a .program- - 17 Public interpretation and companies. The ~erosiaceIn- matic approach to compliance education dustries Association (AIA), a with NHPA is in their interest member organization com- and to determine whether their In addition to the need for prised of approximately 50 cor- presewation program should personnel for purposes of com- porate members and their be carried out through a central- pliance with Federal historic subsidiaries, maintains a ized office at headquarters or at preservation law, relevant agen- Washington executive office the individual installation level. cies engaged in funding highly that could help serve as a scientific research should pro- I Federal agencies should ex- clearinghouse for such efforts. vide resources to allow their amine their existing resident historians and ar- u~drninistrativeprocedures mechanisms for public involve- chivists to begin cataloging, or ment to ensure that these are IOver the nert two years, the and &deral agencies, in coopera- adequate to sufficiently include those parties with legitimate his- presewation of, various records tion with the Advlsov Council and documentary media per- torlc preservation interests in on Historic Presewation, should the decisionmaking process. tinent to their facilities, struc- evaluate their current ad-

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 64 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WlTH THE

Once this is done, certain ques- technological nature, the Coun- gram. Finally, NSF should actions need to be addressed. cil, NPS, and NCSHPO should tively work with the Council, These might include: "How are take the lead in working with af NPS, and SHPOs to address the such properties and the scien- fected agencies, private institu- variety of matters related to Sec- tific and technological history tions, and SHPOs to facilitate tion 106 on both a project and behind them beina oresented interaction in workshoos and oroaram-wide basis. to the public?" any'7s there a other forums. national interest in such efforts, I The Advisoly Council on His- and if so, what is it?" I Congress should consider a toric Preservation should desig- modest appropriation, sup I Federal agencies need to nate one or more staff members plemental to the NPS Fiscal determine more precisely the to serve as contacts on scien- management status of historic tific and technological Year 1992 budget, to record and document particularly vul- properties for which they may programs and projects. These be responsible where ques- individuals should become nerable historic scientific and tions exist. For example, some thoroughly familiar with existing technical facilities and begin a systematic inventory of such agencies have overlapping in- Federal programs and the types terests or jurisdictions for the of historic facilities which may resources in cooperation with care of facilities. Agencies be affected by them. agencies and SHPOs. must examine existing legal I Specific financial resources responsibilities, as well as inter- shouldNASA' each NSF' acquire USAF' personneland required to accomplish related ests among the owners, goals should be determined, with historic preservation exper- managers' and users Of these tise for their Washington, DC, of- and discussions initiated properties with regard to his- toward their anainment. fices. toric preservation. They must Specific attention should be ensure that there are currently I NASA, DOE, and USAF given by all Federal agencies adequate incentives for preser- should each designate an in- engaged in scientific research vation andlor public interprets- dividual at the headquarters to the kinds of interpretive tion. level to work full-time coordinat- orooosals and anendant costs ing historic preservation preiented in the NPSs "Man in n~taffingand training programs and planning with Space" study of alternatives. I The Department of the lnte- facilities staff, public affairs of- I The preservation and scien- rior, in cooperation with the fices, and external affairs for tific communities should dis- Smithsonian Institution, should their respective agencies. This cuss with Federal agencies the provide technical assistance would include contractors and, current and possible future and advice to those scientific where appropriate, visitor's preservation needs of scientific facilities around the nation inter- centers and cooperating and technologicalproperties, in- ested in identifying and evaiuat- museums: Smithsonian Institu- cluding, for example, whether ing the historic nature of their tion, Alabama Space and Rock- program funds that have not facilities. This information et Center, Oak Ridge, Los normally been considered for should include innovative ways Alamos, Cape Canaveral's Air historic preservation use, such in which agencies may be able Force Space Museum, etc. as archival retention, cyclic to address preservation needs I NSF should develop maintenance, orpublic history, and responsibilities. SHPO guidelines for NSF support that could be used to assist with staff in affected states should may affect historic preservation physical preservation needs or also receive such technical as- concerns. NSF should also onsite interpretation of facilities. sistance and advice to enhance work with recipient institutions Money spent to advance his- their ability to make appropriate to promote preservation of toric preservation might well be judgments. scientific and technological paid back in numerous educa- I In key states which contain facilities and instruments, in tional and other benefits. many potentially important his- conjunction with NSF's Science toric resources of a scientific or and Engineering Education Pro-

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 65

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVA'IlON 66 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 67

APPENDIX 1: Report preparation and acknowledgments

This study was done under the ad hoc advisory panel, includ- telephone. The Council espe- direction of a task force of Coun- ing: cially wishes to thank: cil members. The task force in- Dr. Robert J. Brucato, assis- Alabama Space and Rocket cluded: tant director, Palomar Obser- Center vatory California Institute of Scott Osborne, assistant direc- Alan Raul, general counsel, the Technology; Department of Agriculture tor (chair) Dr. Harry Butowsky, historian, David Taylor Research Center Dennis Mullins, expert mem- History Division, National Park ber, Los Angeles, California Service. Department of the lnte- Lawrence Earle, planning team rior; leader, Naval Facilities En- gineering Command Lynn Kartavich, citizen mem- Dr. A. Ludlow Clark, chief, ber, Columbus, Ohio Natural Resources Branch, Kenneth Lebo, Shore Facilities The analysis was conducted Department of the Air Force; Planning Office and the report written by the Mr. Eric Hertfelder, executive Department of Energy director, National Conference of Council's Office of Program Benjamin F. Cooling, chief his- Review and Education: State Historic Preservation Of- ficers; torian, DOE Executive Secretariat Ronald D. Anzalone, director Dr. George T. Mazuzan, his- Goddard Space Flight Center Thomas M. McCulloch, historian, Legislative and Public Af- toric preservation specialist fairs Division, National Science Edward Dyer, P.E., supervisory Foundation; aerospace engineer, Paula L. Mark, secretary Dr. J. Bernard Murphy, special Electromagnetic Compatibility Editing, design, and production advisor, Office of the Chief of Mitchell Brown, head, Planning were provided by the Council's Naval Operations, Department and Programing Branch, Office of Communications and of the Navy; Facilities Engineering Division Publications: Dr. Constance Werner Kennedy Space Center Ramirez, Federal Preservation Marcia A. Smith, director Officer and planner, Natural and Mario Busacca, biologist, En- vironmental Management Staff Elizabeth Moss, writer-editor Cultural Resources Division, Department of the Army; Jet Propulsion Laboratory Ann H. Post, publications assis- Dr. Ray Williamson, senior as- Frances Goetz, Facilities Office tant sociate, International Security In addition, Payson Peabody, and Commerce Program, Office William York, Jr., manager, con- of Technology Assessment; struction of facilities, Program special assistant, Office of Office General Counsel. Department of Mr. Norman Willis, director, Agriculture, acted as liaison be- Facilities Operations and Main- Langley Research Center tenance Division, Real Estate tween the staff and the task Management, National John Mouring, master planner, force chairman and provided Aeronautics and Space Ad- Facilities helpful suggestions and advice. ministration; Los Alamos National The Council is also apprecia- Laboratory tive of the advice and assis- In addition, numerous managers, engineers, scientists. Robert Siedel, project leader for tance given to us by many laboratory overview project individuals during analysis and and museum curators assisted us in the course of visiting their Beverly Larson, staff ar- preparation of this report. The cheologist Council especially wishes to ac- institutions and facilities or dis- knowledge the members of an cussing the issues on the

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

Marshall Space Flight Center Yerkes ObseNatory Photo credits Ramone Samaniego, chief, Richard Kron, director Facilities Master Planning Cover and photographs on Celia Homans, director, Office pages xi, l,2, 8,9,22-23 National Air and Space of Government Relations, (bottom),27, 31, 34, 44, 47, 50, Museum University of Chicago 51,57,60,65,courtesy of Lin Ezell, assistant director, Col- Kyle Cudworth, associate NASA. Pages ii, N,18, 19, 66, lections Management professor, Department of the Hale Observatories, Califor- Astronomy and Astrophysics Howard Smith, chair, nia lnstitute of Technology. Astrophysics Lab D.A. Harper, professor, Depart- Pages viii and 56, the Space ment of Astronomy and and Rocket Center, Huntsville, Dom Pisano, acting chair, Astrophysics Aeronautics Department AL. Page xii, Edison National Judith Bausch, librarianlarchivist Historic Landmark site, NPS. David DeVorkin, curator of astronomy Robert Meadows, physical plant Page 3, Department of the Army. Pages 12-13. 14 (top), Ed McManus, conservator The Council received written Ron Anzalone, photographer. National Museum of American comments on its Federal Page 14 (bottom), Yerkes History Register notice from the Califor- Observatory, University of Arthur Molella, chairman, nia lnstitute of Technology and Chicago. Page 21, U.S. Navy.

Department of Science and the Universitv~ ~ of Chicaao as Pages 22-23 (top), Marcia Technology well as the SHPO~of Gzona, Awtman Smith, photographer. William Withuhn, deputy chair- Massachusetts, North Carolina, Page 26, Langley Research man, Department of Science Tennessee, Wyoming, and a Center, NASA. Page 35, Jet and Technology member of the staff of the Propulsion Laboratory, Califor- David Allison, curator, Division Oregon SHPO. nia lnstitute of Technology. of Computers, Information and It also received written com- Pages 40 and 41, Robert Fink. Society ments from a representative of photographer. Bernard Finn, curator, Division NASA, Palomar Observatory, of Electricity and Modern Lick Observatory, Allegheny Ob- Physics servatory, and Yerkes Obser- Jeffrey Stine, curator, Division vatory on earlier drafts of the of Engineering and Industry report. Copies of these comments National Science Foundation are available from the Council Morris Aizenman, deputy direc- upon request. tor, Division of Astronomical Sciences Naval Observatory Stephen Dick, historian Palomar ObSeNatory Robert Brucato, assistant director Maurice Brundige, assistant general counsel, California In- stitute of Technology Kim Chamberlain, counsel Daniel Joseph, counsel Redstone Arsenal Bill Schroder, environmental quality coordinator

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATTON OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 69

APPENDIX 2: Congressional letter requesting the analysis

nc _*me- ,US. c-",,. ATTACHMENT J UORR!S K. "DILL An1zONA CHAIRMAN STINLI. SFOVlLLr IT, U-*~LU(oW m.w*.. WU I,. ,w.wow W.,", ,.LmOYUII*O.C."lDU.. ,7111 01110011 .* III.',. ",3YM,,". "0" WI*L'"O"..U COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR m°CoUHs~L ","",YWI.,I**I.L"- -c-.m- ..m, uuu u,rrn"mnr os*nsnnr oll*m MI .nn* YI**l,(ll* ,.,,,,".US.~"IU AND INSULAR AFFAIRS """"""*soCwTr *,AFT lll"l0OA .r ""l-,.W*M .u-,. YCUrn". "WW. U~Dcnumrl c"l"L,.II-"U-O .I"IUL'UY WIWOIS 'IIIYO*L U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ,~~~~~,~%~%&r~L~~o~~~LV.~~~~~ WASHINGTON. DC 20515 UEGEMINUIRYNH COUIIIIL .r,,"X.~.,Y.,ln~.n"~.7UIIUIrnOI*U LLUIUCIV- .,ll"ll. .ltDLOIt=w ,I1..*UO,DI. "WYIUCD ..I Wl'mZwI. IICHUB AGWM :1010, ."DD..UDL" 'SOCY c- WW."O".m CHlEf UI*OIIT" COUNSEL X1"" ,. MW.I. II""I3III .,,, l,n,mo,....m.". IYII.. IY%TtLMRIO IICO *

Dear Mr. Rogers: As part of the reauthorization for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (H.R. 1759), an issue arose concerning the complexities involved in having properties designated (or determined eligible for designation) as National Historic Landmarks that are also operational and highly technolagical. Great concern was expressed that the procedures necessary to ensure full compliance with the Historic Preservation Act could interfere with the operations of such facilities, and particularly with the constant need to modify and upgrade them. We helieve that a balance must be maintained between the needs of historic preservation and the needs of operational facilities, and are supportive of both. We also believe that more congruence between these respective needs is possible. For example, the greater participation of active research scientists and managers in preparing memoranda of agreement would assist in ensuring that such memoranda reflect the needs of both parties. The increasingly technological nature of our society guarantees that future proposed National Historic Landmarks will raise similar issues to those faced here. Because of this, the undersigned hereby request the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to undertake a comprehensive analysis to examine these issues. Specifically, such an analysis should focus on the properties identified in the two National Historic Landmark Theme Studies, "Man in Space' and "Astronomy and Astrophysics." We request a completed analysis within one year, by September 30, 1990 to be transmitted to the House of Representatives' Committee

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 70 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

Mr. John F. W. Rogers September 20, 1989 Page two on Interior and Insular Affairs and the Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The Analysis should include, but not be limited to, the following issues:

1) Ways to balance the needs of historic preservation and facility operation at highly technological and/or scientific facilities.

2) Impediments to achieving such a balance, such as time delays and security concerns and approaches to minimize such impediments.

3) Procedures to ensure that both historic preservation and scientific/technological communities continue to assist each other in the development and execution of agreements that fulfill the respective needs of historic preservation and facility operation. Preparation of the Analysis must include active participation of the federal agencies and their grantees and contractors, as well as the historic preservation community. Active scientists and managers should be involved to give their recommendations on how to ensure that agencies can expeditiously fulfill their missions, including research, development and operations. We look forward to receiving the Analysis, and believe that its recommendations will greatly assist agencies in preserving our nation's history. Sincerely,

,'~r.Bruce F. Vento Mr. Robert A. Roe 1: Chairman Chairman FSubcommittee on National Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 2, J & Mr. Robert S. Walker Ranking Republican Member Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVXnON OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 71

APPENDIX 3: Programmatic Agreement among NASA, NCSHPO, and the Advisory Council for management of NASA's National Historic Landmarks

NASA will ensure that t

I. Categories of Activit

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 72 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 73

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATlON 74 BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 75

1. Variable de

7. Spacecraft propu

8. Redstone test st

9 Propulsion and st

12. Lunar landing research facility (Langle

13. Rendezvous docking simulator (Langl

14. Neutral buoyancy space simulator (Ge

15. Space environment simulation laborat

16. Spacecraft magnetic test facility (Goddar

17. Twenty-five-foot space simulator (Jet Pro

18 Pioneer deep space station (Goldstone

19. Space flight operations facility (Jet Pr

20. Apollo Mission Control center (Ly

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 76 BALANCING HISTORICPRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

APPENDIX 4: Cooperative agreement between NASA and the Smithsonian Institution for the curation of historic equipment

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNICAL OR SCIENTIFIC FACILITIES 77

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION BALANCING HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS WITH THE

APPENDIX 5: References cited

Advisory Council on Historic toric Landmark Theme Study, U.S. Department of the lnterior, Preservation. Public Participa- U.S. Department of the lnterior, National Park Service, Man in tion in Section 106 Review: A National Park Service, Space: Study of Alternatives, Guide for Agency Officials, Washington. U.S. Government Washington. U.S. Government Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989. Printing Office, 1990. Printing Office, 1989. Butowsky, Harry A., Man in U.S. Department of the lnterior, Advisory Council on Historic Space National Historic National Park Service, Preservation. Regulations Effec- Landmark Theme Study, U.S. "Guidelines for Applying the Na- tiveness Report, Washington, Department of the lnterior, Na- tional Register Criteria for U.S. Government Printing tional Park Service, Washington, Evaluation," National Register Office, 1990. U.S. Government Printing Bulletin, No. 15, Washington, Office, 1984. U.S. Government Printing Advisory Council on Historic Office, 1989. Preservation and U.S. Depart- National Aeronautics and ment of the lnterior, National Space Administration, Facilities Park Service, Identification of Handbook, Washington. U.S. Historic Properties: A Decision- Government Printing Office making Guide for Managers. (under revision). Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Management In- Advisory Council on Historic struction 8800.9C. Washington, Preservation and U.S. Depart- U.S. Government Printing Office ment of the lnterior, National (under revision). Park Service, The Section 110 Guidelines: Annotated National Science Foundation, Guidelines for Federal Agency NSF Science and Technology Responsibilities under Section Research Centers (Washington: 110 of the National Historic National Science Foundation, Preservation Act, Washington, 1989). U.S. Government Printing Office,1989. U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, "His- Bloch, Erich, "NSF at Forty," toric Preservation," Army NSF Directions, Vol. 3. No. 1, Regulation 420-40, April 15, Washington, National Science 1984. Foundation, 1990. U.S. Department of the lnterior, Bush, Vannevar,Science: The The Secretary of the Interior's Endless Frontier (1 945; rpt.: Standards and Guidelines for Washington, National Science Archeology and Historic Preser- Foundation, 1980). vation, 48 FR 44716.14740, September 29, 1983. Butowsky. Harry A,, Astronomy and Astrophysics National His-

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISORIC PRESERVATION OPERATION OF HIGHLY TECHNIGIL OR SCIENTIFICFACILITIES 79

Notes

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION