Department of Defense
Legacy Resource Management Program
Project 13-701
Programmatic Approaches to the Management
of Cold War Historic Properties
Van Citters: Historic Preservation, LLC
SRI Foundation
14 May 2015
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
Department of Defense Legacy Resource ..., Summaries of Communication
The Department of Defense (DoD) manages the world's largest specialized real property inventory, counting more than “557,000 facilities ( ...
Typology: Summaries
2021/2022
1 / 184
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download Department of Defense Legacy Resource ... and more Summaries Communication in PDF only on Docsity!
Department of Defense
Legacy Resource Management Program
Project 13 - 701
Programmatic Approaches to the Management
of Cold War Historic Properties
Van Citters: Historic Preservation, LLC
SRI Foundation
14 May 2015
Workshop on DoD Cold War Military Mission-Related Properties – September 4, 2014
Final Report March 27, 2015
Funded by and Submitted to the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program Project Number 13-701, “Programmatic Approaches to the Management of Cold War Historic Properties.”
Submitted by:
Van Citters Historic Preservation, LLC and
SRI Foundation
Legacy Project 13-701 ii
ACRONYMS
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation BASOPS Base Operations BRAC Base Closure and Realignment DoD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy ELPA Eligible for the Purposes of a Program Alternative (RPAD historic status code) ESOH Environment, Safety and Occupational Health FY Fiscal Year HABS Historic American Buildings Survey HAER Historic American Engineering Record NASA National Aeronautical and Space Administration NCSHPO National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers NEV Not Yet Evaluated (RPAD historic status code) NHL National Historic Landmark NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPS National Park Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PA Programmatic Agreement RPAD Real Property Asset Database SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
Legacy Project 13-701 iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Defense (DoD) manages the world’s largest specialized real property inventory, counting more than “557,000 facilities (buildings, structures, and linear structures), located on over 5,000 sites worldwide and covering over 27.7 million acres.”^1 A significant portion of this global portfolio is comprised of DoD’s vast inventory of military, scientific and technical assets related to the Cold War Era (1945-1991).^2 To meet the regulatory obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act, DoD has spent more than two decades surveying its Cold War assets, commissioning hundreds of studies and assessments by professional historians to evaluate this inventory, including the potential for exceptional significance. Beginning in fiscal year 1992, nationwide historic contexts on major programs (known as “missions”) of the Cold War were funded through the Legacy Resource Management Program, and hundreds, if not thousands, of historical studies have been completed since then.
Most of the studies have been completed through Section 106 compliance. Participating in DoD discussions and understanding the need for a more comprehensive approach, Van Citters: Historic Preservation, LLC and SRI Foundation applied for, and received, funding from the Legacy Resource Management Program under project #13-701 to develop a systemic and more cost effective means by which to manage DoD Cold War resources. In order to develop a plan of action, the two organizations convened a workshop that included approximately thirty participants from DoD, other federal, state, non-profit, and private organizations.
The resulting workshop to discuss Cold War Military Mission-Related Properties was held in Washington, D.C. on September 4th^ and 5th, 2014. During the workshop the attendees collaborated to determine an appropriate path forward for the proactive management of DoD’s Cold War inventory.
The workshop detailed in this report is part of a larger project to develop and implement programmatic approaches for the consistent management of DoD Cold War properties. The outcomes of the workshop include management categories of Cold War mission-related properties, recommendations for a variety of management approaches specific to each category, and next steps for developing those approaches. The management categories developed included: Unique Properties Mission-Specific Properties
- Buildings, Structures, Districts
- Testing and Evaluation Sites
- Training Ranges
- Networked Properties Repurposed Properties Utilitarian Properties
Management approaches identified during the workshop include (1) developing a prototype programmatic agreement for DoD undertakings involving these Management Categories; (2) conducting a gap analysis of certain categories of properties to identify appropriate property-specific or programmatic approaches and
(^1) Department of Defense Base Structure Report FY 2013 Baseline, available from http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/Base%20Structure%20Report%202013_06242013.pdf (^2) For the purposes of this workshop, DoD uses the Congressionally-defined 1945-1991 range for the Cold War era.
Legacy Project 13-701 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................... i ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................................ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. iii 1.0 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 WORKSHOP PLANNING PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 2 3.0 WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................................................. 3 3.1 Welcome and Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Presentations on Workshop Structure and Background Information.......................................................... 5 3.3 Small Group Discussions .......................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Meeting the Following Day ....................................................................................................................... 8 4.0 MEETING RESULTS................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Summary of Management Solutions ......................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Three Programmatic Solutions................................................................................................................ 10 4.2.1 Prototype Programmatic Agreement for DoD Undertakings ......................................................... 10 4.2.2 Program Alternative for Utilitarian Historic Properties ................................................................. 10 4.2.3 Synthesis/Matrix ............................................................................................................................ 11 4.2.3.1 Mission-Specific Properties (Buildings, Structures, and Districts) ........................................... 11 4.2.3.2 Mission-Specific Properties ...................................................................................................... 12 4.3 General Observations on Proposed Programmatic Solutions.................................................................. 13 4.3.3 Application of Standard Section 106 Process .................................................................................. 14 4.3.3.1 Unique Cold War Properties ..................................................................................................... 14 4.3.3.2 Repurposed Cold War Properties .............................................................................................. 14 5.0 NEXT STEPS............................................................................................................................................ 15
APPENDIX A: Information for Workshop Attendees, DoD Cold War Mission Historic Properties APPENDIX B: Workshop Agenda APPENDIX C: Final Participants List APPENDIX D: DoD Cold War Mission-Related Properties Presentation APPENDIX E: Additional bibliographic information for the Pacific/Alaska regions APPENDIX F: Curation of Historic Facilities Drawings at AFHRA APPENDIX G: Small Breakout Group Instructions APPENDIX J: Protection of Historic Properties – 36CFR APPENDIX H: Example DoD Program Alternatives APPENDIX I: Proposed Program Alternatives by Management Category
Legacy Project 13-701 1
1.0 BACKGROUND
The workshop was completed under the larger Legacy Resource Management Program, Project #13-701. The goal of the project was to develop and implement an action plan for programmatic approaches to the identification, evaluation, and management of significant Cold War Mission-Related Properties on DoD installations. The properties that were the subject of this project included all sites, buildings, structures and districts that have a clear and direct association with the Cold War Mission.
Legacy Resource Management Program, Project #13-701 comprised four tasks: 1) Synthesis; 2) Workshop;
- Compliance Process; and 4) Implementation. To complete the synthesis, the Project Team collected and reviewed available reports, context studies, histories, and other related documents in order to determine what Cold War Mission-Related assets had been surveyed and documented. During this task, the Project Team consulted with the leads of other Cold War projects (Legacy-funded, Military Service-funded, National Park Service (NPS)-funded, and others) to capture a status on their findings and projected paths forward. The resulting product was an annotated bibliography, which was provided to workshop attendees (stakeholders and consulting parties) prior to the event as baseline information (Appendix A). The workshop was the second task of the project, and is defined in more detail in the body of this report.
Providing recommendations on a compliance process, based on the results of the workshop, was the third task. This task is also defined in this report, in the form of a detailed action plan for developing the identified programmatic approaches. The plan lays out the tasks to be performed, the party or parties responsible for implementing these tasks, and a process for carrying out the tasks. As part of these two tasks, this final report on the workshop and action plan will be distributed to the Project Stakeholders and to appropriate DoD installation staff nationwide.
The fourth and final planned task was implementation. Although originally scoped as part of this project, this final task was altered as a result of the workshop deliberations. The workshop participants recommended that the next and final step in the project should focus on obtaining buy-in and support from DoD and stakeholders on the action plan and process for implementing the programmatic approaches identified during the workshop, as there would be no need for implementation if there was no buy-in or support for the identified programmatic approaches. The Project Team has, however, received funding for a follow on project to collaborate with DoD cultural resources policy leadership and consult with Consulting Parties to select and implement one or more programmatic approaches identified in the action plan.
Legacy Project 13-701 3
3.0 WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS
Participants began arriving at the offices of the ACHP at 8:30 on the morning of Thursday, September 4. As the participants entered the ACHP conference room, they were greeted by the Project Team and asked to find the name card marking their assigned seat in one of the four groups established for the event. Each participant was asked to review the day’s agenda (Appendix B) and workshop materials.
3.1 Welcome and Introduction
Mr. John Fowler, Executive Director of the ACHP, welcomed the guests and highlighted the ACHP’s commitment to working with federal agencies to improve the management of the historic properties in their care. He noted the ACHP’s ten year history of working with programmatic alternatives, including many such approaches implemented with the Military Components, individually, and with the DoD as a whole.
Ms. Maureen Sullivan, the Director of ESOH in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and DoD’s Federal Preservation Officer, officially opened the workshop with introductory remarks. Ms. Sullivan outlined the department’s vast real property portfolio. She noted that it is the largest specialized inventory of buildings and structures in the world with over 557, assets, equaling 62% of all US government real property assets. Of these DoD assets, more than 259,000 (46%) were constructed during the Cold War era (1945-1991). Ms. Sullivan also highlighted several challenges that DoD faces in properly managing this portfolio while being good stewards of the department’s historic properties:
Budgets for sustainment (maintenance) continue to shrink. DoD facilities management has been trending towards larger, centralized, flexible spaces; not smaller, specialized buildings spread across an installation. Mandates to shrink the DoD footprint – “Rightsizing” – puts these resources often at the top of the demolition list. Reuse of highly specialized facilities can be costly due to construction types, remote location of some resources, and security considerations. Energy efficiency mandates can be difficult to implement in some types of Cold War era buildings, particularly utilitarian and scientific facilities. Expiration of Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) authority makes divestiture difficult. Staff support at military installations and at some SHPO offices is not at a level capable of meeting increased National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) management needs.
Ms. Sullivan next highlighted the status of DoD’s NHPA compliance efforts to date. She cited several thousand surveys and evaluations completed, department-wide. Dozens of national contexts have been
Legacy Project 13-701 4
written, tens of thousands of assets are listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), several facilities are listed as National Historic Landmarks (NHL), and documentation that meets or exceeds Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) / Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards for hundreds of current and former DoD properties has been completed and is on file with the Library of Congress. Despite this impressive effort, DoD can only count 37% of its Cold War assets as inventoried and evaluated in compliance with Section 110 of the NHPA.
According to Ms. Sullivan, the challenges facing DoD are outpacing their ability to evaluate their properties. DoD has successfully implemented large-scale management approaches, including wholesale NHPA Section 106 compliance via programmatic alternatives issued by the ACHP for more than 25,000 Cold War properties. Ms. Sullivan called for more of these approaches, and asked the workshop participants to collaborate with DoD to define the best path forward to help better manage their remaining inventory of Cold War properties.
Upon completion of Ms. Sullivan’s remarks, Project Team member Brian Lione led a quick round of participant introductions, referring everyone to the final list of participants for context (Appendix C). Mr. Lione then directed the participants to the workshop presentation (Appendix D) and led the participants through a brief history of DoD’s efforts to comply with the NHPA via “traditional” methods for implementing and complying with Sections 106 and 110. Building on Maureen Sullivan’s remarks about the DoD portfolio, Mr. Lione outlined how, despite nearly 25 years of investigation, thousands of surveys and studies, and a very large expenditure of funds, DoD still struggles with achieving a full accounting of all its historic Cold War properties. Mr. Lione ended this portion of the presentation with a snapshot of DoD’s current status: DoD knows more about the Cold War – and its own Cold War resources – than anyone else. DoD work continues to be driven by Section 106 DoD has put in considerable effort evaluating Cold War Resources and will continue to do so using the Section 106 process, unless a holistic solution is developed DoD is spending constrained resources resurveying historic properties DoD needs comprehensive plan standards and buy‐in from the larger community
Mr. Lione continued the presentation and walked participants through the definition of the “Universe of Need.” Again reflecting back on Ms. Sullivan’s remarks, Mr. Lione described the subset of properties that the Project Team considered in preparing proposed management approaches as defined in the pre-workshop materials. He referred the participants to two handouts: All Cold War Facilities – Overview with Charts (Appendix E) and Cold War Assets - Sorted by State (Appendix F). Using this information, he explained how the Project Team took the 259,000 Cold War resources and narrowed the group to 56,316. This was accomplished by limiting the types of facilities considered to only those designed / used for mission support, in contrast to routine base operations assets (BASOPS). The inventory of these facilities is easily defined by looking at four (of nine) “Facility Classes,” the descriptors used in the DoD real property system to categorize buildings and structures by use. These four classes––Operation and Training; Maintenance and Production; Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation, and Supply––were determined by the Project Team to comprise all Cold War mission-related facilities in the DoD real property portfolio. Mr. Lione explained that the programmatic approaches developed by the Team are based on the concept that all Cold War mission-related resources are potentially significant and thus comprise the Universe of Need for the current effort to develop programmatic approaches for management of these Cold War historic properties.
Legacy Project 13-701 6
cross cut all services, themes, property types, and geographic areas. Ms. Van Citters went on to list and define the five proposed categories: Unique: properties specially designed to meet a very specific military role, required exceptional engineering or architectural development in order to bring them to fruition, and have a strong association with military strategic planning or response to the perceived Soviet/communist threat. Mission Specific Properties: specifically and individually designed to serve a Cold War purpose. They may be of a standard plan, be individually designed, and may be of a fairly simple design; however, they are directly associated with the Cold War mission. These properties may not have exceptional engineering or architecture, but can still be considered historically significant because they embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or, may be part of a significant historic district, but are not individually significant. Networked Properties: properties that required a network across state lines in order to effectively ensure defense and deterrence of Soviet aggression against the United States. Because they were networked, they were constructed using standard plans, but unlike other standard plan properties, they were linked strategically and through communications to provide nationwide or perimeter coverage. Mission-Specific Sites: properties include large swaths of land within the DoD that were used to support the Cold War military mission. They typically were used for weapons development and testing, training, and targets. Reused / Utilitarian: properties that were constructed in previous eras that were reused for an important military mission that was directly related to the Cold War.
3.3 Small Group Discussions
After the initial two hour welcome and introduction, the participants were directed to work in small groups and discuss the information presented to them. These groups had been established by the Project Team to ensure an equal balance of DoD, other federal agencies, SHPO staff, and advocacy organizations. Each group was given a set of instructions in a handout (Appendix I) by the small group facilitator, Terry Klein. Mr. Klein instructed each group to first assign a recorder and spokesperson, then discuss all five of the management categories. He was careful to explain that nothing should be considered “off the table”––meaning that the small groups could make changes to the categories and approaches, if deemed appropriate. To this end, two further specific instructions were given:
If the group does not agree with all or some of the initial recommended Management Categories, are there others to recommend?
If the group disagrees with the concept of using Management Categories, what alternate approach or approaches would the group use to organize Cold War mission-related properties in order to more effectively
Legacy Project 13-701 7
manage these properties?
Once Mr. Klein was confident that the groups were prepared to take on their task, they began their discussions. During this initial 45 minute session, all three members of the Project Team sat in on each group’s discussions, taking turns to ensure each understood the direction the groups were taking. The first small group discussion session ended with a break for lunch.
After lunch, Mr. Klein provided a quick overview of the morning’s activities, and explained the next steps. As there was a general consensus by the participants on the proposed Management Categories, a large group discussion was not required. These Management Categories were organized as follows:
Unique Properties Mission-Specific Properties
- Buildings, Structures, Districts
- Testing and Evaluation Sites
- Training Ranges
- Properties Networked Across State Lines Repurposed Properties Utilitarian Properties
Deviating from the provided agenda, Mr. Klein instructed the groups to reconvene to continue their work. During this session, the task was to select a Management Category and determine how to approach the management of that category using a Program Alternative, such as a Program Comment, Exemption, Standard Treatment or others as outlined in paragraph 14 of Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800.14) (provided as a handout – see Appendix J). To assist with this effort, the Project Team provided the groups with handouts on Example DoD Program Alternatives (Appendix K), provided by the ACHP, and Proposed Program Alternatives by Management Category (Appendix L), created by the Project Team.
Participants were further instructed to define how such an alternative could be developed: what steps would be needed, how long would an effort take, who would be the primary partners in the development and implementation, what might implementation cost, and other details.
Participants worked for 90 minutes, and were welcome to take a short break. Many continued their discussions during this break in preparation for the large group discussion. In the last hour of the day, using flip charts and notes prepared by the group recorder, each group’s spokesperson walked through a summary of their efforts, from their assessment of the original, proposed Management Categories, to their recommendations for a path forward to manage a given category using Program Alternatives or other methods.
Legacy Project 13-701 9
4.0 MEETING RESULTS
Below are the results of the workshop in terms of the management solutions identified by the workshop participants. As noted above, the workshop participants came to a general consensus that the Management Categories identified by the project team were appropriate. These Management Categories were:
Unique Properties Mission-Specific Properties
- Buildings, Structures, Districts
- Testing and Evaluation Sites
- Training Ranges
- Properties Networked Across State Lines Repurposed Properties Utilitarian Properties
Although the workshop participants as a whole were comfortable with these Management Categories, the small group discussions on management solutions decided to re-examine them. However, these discussions did not come up with other or better alternatives for organizing Cold War mission-related properties.
4.1 Summary of Management Solutions
Workshop participants identified three programmatic management solutions to the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the above Cold War mission property Management Categories:
A Prototype Programmatic Agreement (PA) for DoD undertakings that may affect Cold War mission properties, regardless of the property Management Category. This instrument will establish those undertakings that would not cause an adverse effect to any Cold War mission properties, and therefore, would require no further Section 106 consultation with SHPOs, other consulting parties, or the ACHP. This Program Alternative would serve as an interim process until the full implementation of the Synthesis/Matrix instrument referenced below.
Program Alternative for utilitarian historic properties. This instrument would encompass utilitarian properties from all historic periods, including the Cold War era. This Program Alternative may be a Program Comment, Standard Treatment, national Programmatic Agreement, or other type of Program Alternative listed under 36 CFR 800.14.
Synthesis/Matrix. This instrument would focus on the following Mission-Specific properties: 1)
buildings, structures and districts; 2) testing, training and evaluation sites; and 3) networked properties. The synthesis/matrix, organized by Cold War missions and themes that will be applied to each of these three overarching management categories, will result in a gap analysis. This gap analysis will subsequently guide the development of specific Program Alternatives for each management category/theme combination.
Each of these programmatic solutions is discussed in detail below. The workshop participants also recommended that a group of Management Categories not be addressed through a Program Alternative but should be managed through the standard Section 106 process. These Management Categories included:
Legacy Project 13-701 10
Unique Resources Repurposed Properties
The management of these properties is also examined in detail below.
4.2 Three Programmatic Solutions
4.2.1 Prototype Programmatic Agreement for DoD Undertakings
It was not envisioned that the proposed prototype PA would be linked with specific Management Categories, but rather that it could cover two steps of the standard Section 106 process. First, this prototype PA could establish that all Cold War mission-related properties (Category Codes 1, 2, 3, and 4) are assumed eligible for the National Register, except for those already determined ineligible through prior consultations.^6 If this were used it could also reduce the need for re-evaluations as these properties age. Second, the prototype PA could establish those activities or undertakings that would not cause an adverse effect to these properties and would not require further consultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties. The prototype PA could also reduce the number of consultations required under Section 106 by listing those that do not require further consultation. This could reduce the number of “no adverse effect” consultations for both the installations and the SHPOs, and in turn, result in a greater focus on those activities that will adversely affect historic properties. The Air Force would take the lead in developing the PA and partner with the Army, Navy, NASA and DOE.
The group of workshop participants that identified development of a prototype PA would like to continue to work on the possibility of a PA as a Working Group. The recommended steps to develop the prototype PA are: 1) study known data to define facilities; 2) draft list of Category Code 1, 2, 3, 4 facilities to be covered in the prototype PA; 3) draft list of undertakings that would not affect properties; 4) draft the prototype agreement; 5) consult with SHPOs; 6) address comments, revise, and refine; and 7) finalize the prototype agreement.
As noted above, this Program Alternative would serve as an interim process until the full implementation of the Synthesis/Matrix discussed below.
4.2.2 Program Alternative for Utilitarian Historic Properties
These properties represent the most functional and basic architectural level possible. They are often referred to as “utilitarian” and are typically constructed using expedient measures and materials such as prefabricated metal or concrete masonry unit. It was recommended by the group discussing this Program Alternative, that this Management Category be expanded beyond the Cold War and to include all utilitarian structures.
The goal of this Program Alternative is to remove these properties from further Section 106 consideration, although a Programmatic Alternative will not be applied to those utilitarian resources that are located within historic districts, have been previously listed, or have been determined eligible for listing. The development of the instrument should be done in consultation with OSD, DoD Components, ACHP, NCSHPO, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and other interested parties. The DoD should develop a list of utilitarian properties and provide to SHPOs, a treatment/mitigation product should be defined (if appropriate), and there
(^6) It is also possible that a prototype PA could prescribe or allow eligibility unless or until additional information becomes available there is no significance.
Legacy Project 13-701 12
architectural characteristics, these Mission-Specific Properties can be significant because they embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or, may be part of a significant historic district.
Potential management recommendations for these properties may include the following:
- Several examples of these properties have been turned over to the NPS or states to serve as interpretive sites. As part of the above discussed study associated with the synthesis/matrix, the DoD could identify properties that could possibly be de-accessioned from the DoD inventory to serve as additional interpretive sites. If such deaccessioning is feasible, these best representative examples could be preserved for public use. Alternatively or in addition to, already excessed properties may be the best examples, and DoD components could consider partnering with the current owner to support long term preservation.
- Develop a Program Comment, Programmatic Agreement or other type of program alternative that releases these sites from continual, case-by-case Section 106 review for undertakings resulting in adverse effects, including disposal.
4.2.3.2 Mission-Specific Properties
Testing and Training Ranges These properties include (1) Testing Proving Grounds and Evaluation Sites and (2) Training Ranges. Both include large areas of land, water, or airspace within the DoD that were used to support the Cold War military mission. They typically were used for weapons development and testing, training, and targets. Examples of these sites: BOMARC Missile Development Site, Testing and Training Ranges that have multiple Cold War mission associations, Proving Grounds that were used for multiple Cold War missions, Targets (typically on testing/training/proving ground ranges). Ultimately, the management of the two types of sites/ranges will be treated differently.
Potential management recommendations for these properties may include the following:
- The nature of such sites is continual change to meet the mission. Because alterations are integral to the history of these places and likely to their current military mission, they may require unique consideration of the aspects of integrity and their compliance management. Because many of the significant sites have previously been identified, a nationwide data call should be completed and a list of sites developed by the DoD. A popular book of the most interesting, best representative sites should be completed (by region and/or theme) to serve as “mitigation,” which would satisfy NHPA requirements and allow the continuum of change to move forward. The book should include appropriate photography, descriptions, and full vetting by security managers.
- Develop a Program Comment or other program alternative that releases these Cold War mission- related sites from continual, case-by-case Section 106 review. The non-cold war related aspects of any of these properties will most likely still be subject to Section 106 review, should the properties be eligible under a different context.
Legacy Project 13-701 13
Networked Properties These are properties that required a network in order to effectively ensure defense and deterrence of Soviet aggression against the United States. Because they were networked, they were constructed using standard plans, but unlike other standard plan properties, they were linked strategically and through communications to provide nationwide or perimeter coverage. Examples of types of networked properties: SAC Bomber and Air Defense Ready Alert Facilities, Listening Posts, Titan Missile and Minuteman Missile Complexes, NIKE Battalions, White Alice, and BMEWS Radar Sites.
Potential management recommendations for networked properties are similar to those for Mission-Specific Properties (Buildings, Structures, and Districts):
- Several examples of these properties have been turned over to the NPS or states to serve as interpretive sites. As part of the above discussed study associated with the synthesis/matrix, the DoD could identify networked resources that could possibly be de-accessioned from the DoD inventory to serve as additional interpretive sites. If such deaccessioning is feasible, these best representative examples could be preserved for public use.
- Develop a Program Comment, Programmatic Agreement or other type of program alternative that releases these sites from continual, case-by-case Section 106 review for undertakings resulting in adverse effects, including disposal.
- These types of properties were highly visible in the early Cold War studies and most have been evaluated. The project team recommends that a network of sites across state lines be documented in a published popular book describing what they were and how they worked (supporting facilities, as well as how they prevented the Soviets from attacking), their associated lifestyle (e.g., 24/ moleholes, flashing lights in commissary, etc.), and their architecture/engineering. A baseline document has been produced by the Air Force and could be used to move forward.
4.3 General Observations on Proposed Programmatic Solutions
The workshop discussion groups documented a number of issues that need to be taken into account in terms of the above programmatic solutions to Cold War mission-related properties: 1) how to capture the history and stories of the military in the Cold War through its material culture;^8 2) the methodology for managing properties and the qualifications of those completing studies and providing management recommendations;
- two of the management categories may be too large to feasibly manage: testing, training, and evaluation sites and properties that were networked across state lines; 4) how to deal with contaminated buildings/sites; and 5) ensuring security and protection of the Cold War information.
During the workshop, there were numerous references to the NHPA and the need for public history products and discussions about how the DoD can capture the Cold War history and story for the benefit of the American people. It was acknowledged that although typical mitigation projects, such as HABS /HAER/ HALS, document a resource and the information is archived for posterity, such documentation does not regularly find its way to the public. If the DoD is to programmatically work with large groups of their Cold War properties, the workshop attendees believed that a public history component would be necessary. The
(^8) Most of the histories have been written already, the DoD will need to coordinate with historians to manage this aspect.