Prepared for:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

401 F Street NW

Suite 308

Washington, DC 20001

Prepared by:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Environmental Management Division

300 E Street SW 

Washington, DC 20546

Executive Order 13287 “Preserve America”

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Section 3 Triennial Report for the Reporting Period FY2021-FY2023
EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Executive Order 13287 

Section 3 Triennial Report

Reporting Period Fiscal Year 21–23
Table ofContents

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) i

ACRONYMS IV

SECTION ONE OVERVIEW................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Report Organization.....................................................................................1

1.2 A Different Kind of Preservation.................................................................1

1.3 Familiar Challenges, New Solutions............................................................4

SECTION TWO NASA’SCRM PROGRAM............................................................................................ 8

2.1 NASA Locations..........................................................................................8

2.2 CRM Program, Policy, and Procedures.......................................................8

2.3 Program Management Tools......................................................................13

2.4 Data Management Tools............................................................................16

SECTION THREE IDENTIFYING HISTORIC PROPERTIES............................................................. 19

3.1 Inventory Status.........................................................................................19

3.2 Identification of Historic Properties: FY21–23 Highlights........................25

3.3 Identification of Historic Properties: FY21–23 Challenges.......................27

SECTION FOUR PROTECTING AND UTILIZING HISTORIC PROPERTIES................................. 28

4.1 Protection Through Utilization ..................................................................28

4.2 Active Preservation: FY21–23 Highlights.................................................29

4.3 Active Preservation: FY21–23 Challenges................................................35

SECTION FIVE PARTNERSHIPS AND OUTREACH: SUPPORTING THE STEWARDSHIP

OF CULTURAL RESOURCES FY21–23 ................................................................... 37

5.1 Tribal Partnerships and Consultation.........................................................37

5.2 Interagency Partnerships............................................................................41

5.3 Outreach and Education.............................................................................42

5.4 Summary....................................................................................................47
Table ofContents

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) ii

TABLES

Table 1-1. NASA Real Property Assets by Decade........................................................................ 4

Table 2-1. NASA Centers and Component Facilities. .................................................................. 10

Table 2-2. NASA Programmatic Agreements .............................................................................. 14

Table 3-1. Identified Historic Properties by Center...................................................................... 21

Table 3-2. NASA Historic Districts by Center. ............................................................................ 22

Table 3-3. Evaluation Status of Real Property Assets by Center.................................................. 23

Table 3-4. Archaeological Resources at NASA Centers. ............................................................. 24

FIGURES

Cover Image: Artemis I Launch from Launch Complex 39B, KSC, 16 November 2022. 

Title Page Image: Hangar 1 Recladding Project, ARC, 6 June 2023.

Figure 1-1. AMP Asset Bucket Assignment – Mission/Condition Relevance Matrix.................... 6

Figure 2-1. Map of NASA Centers and Component Facilities (NEMCON).................................. 9

Figure 2-2. NASA and ACHP Retreat in March 2023. Back row, left to right: Katie Stefanic and

Carrie Albee (Gray & Pape), Chris Daniel (ACHP), and Emily Dabashinsky (HSG). Front row,

Rebecca Klein (NASA FPO) and on screen, Katherine Zeringue (KSC CRM)........................... 16

Figure 2-3. GRC-Lewis Field Institutional GIS, showing Center boundaries (yellow), historic

district boundaries (red), and buildings color-coded by historic status ........................................ 18

Figure 3-1. The 80x120 foot subsonic wind tunnel at Ames Research Center (ARC)................. 26

Figure 3-2. Building 1251A, contributing resource to the LaRC Historic District and individually

eligible under Criteria A and C..................................................................................................... 27

Figure 4-1. Aerial view of the NRHP-eligible Shuttle Landing Facility Area at KSC................. 29

Figure 4-2. The Section 111 lease with Planetary Ventures stipulates the reskinning of historic

Hangar 1 at ARC. More information on Hangar 1 can be found below....................................... 31

Figure 4-3. Interior of Building 25’s auditorium before renovation............................................. 32

Figure 4-4. Interior of Building 25's auditorium after renovation. ............................................... 32

Figure 4-5. Exterior entry of Building 25 at ARC prior to renovation. ........................................ 32

Figure 4-6. Exterior asbestos containment at Buiding 25............................................................. 32

Figure 4-7. Exterior of Building 25 at ARC after renovation....................................................... 32

Figure 4-8. Scanned copy of the Zero Hour newsletter from October 30, 1933 found during the

renovation of Building 25 at ARC................................................................................................ 33
Table ofContents

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) iii

Figure 4-9. Historic photo of the completed Hangar 1 (Moffett Field Historical Society 

Museum) ....................................................................................................................................... 33

Figure 4-10. Status of the Hangar 1 re-cladding project on July 12, 2023. .................................. 33

Figure 4-11. Status of the Hangar 1 re-cladding project on August 22, 2023. ............................. 33

Figure 4-12. Artemis I stacked on top of the Space Launch System in High Bay 3 of the historic

VAB at KSC on August 16, 2022................................................................................................. 34

Figure 4-13. Artemis I Launch from KSC’s historic Launchpad 39B on November 16, 2022. ... 35

Figure 4-14. Detail photo of the Burro Flats Painted Cave site.................................................... 35

Figure 4-15. A view of the culturally significant landscape at SSFL ........................................... 36

Figure 5-1. The SSFL Oak Grove destruction after the 2018 Woolsley fire ................................ 37

Figure 5-2. Seedlings in the SSFL greenhouse for the Oak Grove revitlization project............... 38

Figure 5-3. Field survey team in flooded mangrove system......................................................... 39

Figure 5-4. Flyer invitation for Community Day Open House..................................................... 39

Figure 5-5. Tour of a Beechcraft King Air aircraft for the BlueFlux open house event............... 39

Figure 5-6. Screenshot of the opening of the virtual forum and listening session........................ 40

Figure 5-7. Archaeological remains of the Elliot Plantation on NASA's KSC.Credits: NPS...... 43

Figure 5-8. NASA staff at the morning tour of the Elliot Plantation at KSC ............................... 43

Figure 5-9. Screenshot of the NASA Internal CRM SharePoint site............................................ 44

Figure 5-10. Restored MOCR-2, showing recreated computer screens (foreground) and viewing

screens (background) .................................................................................................................... 45

Figure 5-11. 1960 Photo of Bravo Test Stand undergoing a hot fire test ..................................... 46

Figure 5-12. 2022 Transport of Bravo Test Stand “tiki torches” to U.S. Air Force Flight Test

Musuem at Edwards Air Force Base............................................................................................. 47

Figure 5-13. Screenshot of NASA CRM website with the APA subpage shown......................... 47
Acronyms

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) iv

ACRONYMS

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AFB Air Force Base

AFRC Armstrong Flight Research Center 

AMP Agency Master Plan

APA Agency-wide Programmatic Agreement 

ARC Ames Research Center

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act

ATF Armstrong Test Facility (formerly Plum Brook Station) 

CCG Criteria Consideration G

CoP Community of Practice

COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2, 2019 Novel Coronavirus

CRM Cultural Resources Manager/Cultural Resources Management 

CMP Center Master Plan

DAF Department of the Air Force

DoD Department of Defense

EMD Environmental Management Division 

EO Executive Order

ESA European Space Agency

EUL Enhanced Use Lease

FRED Facilities and Real Estate Division 

FPO Federal Preservation Officer

FY Fiscal Year

GDSN Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex 

GIS Geographic Information Systems

GRC Glenn Research Center 

GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

HQ Headquarters

HTSF Highly Technical or Scientific Facilities

ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan
Acronyms

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) v

ISS International Space Station

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

JSC Johnson Space Center

KSC Kennedy Space Center

LaRC Langley Research Center

MAF Michoud Assembly Facility

MAIANSE American Indian Alaskan Native STEM Engagement 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOSI Management Operations Services and Information 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center 

MSR Mars Sample Return

MUREP Minority University and Research Education Project 

NACA National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NCSHPO National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 

NEMCON NASA Environmental and Medical Contract

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NETS NASA Environmental Tracking System 

NHL National Historic Landmark

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NPD NASA Policy Directive

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NTHP National Trust for Historic Preservation 

O&M Operations and Maintenance

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OSI Office of Strategic Infrastructure

PA Programmatic Agreement

PACE Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, Ocean Ecosystem 

RPCP Real Property Capital Planning
Acronyms

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) vi

RPMS Real Property Management System 

RSF Resource Significance Framework

RTF Reduce the Footprint

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SLS Space Launch System

SOI Secretary of the Interior

SSC Stennis Space Center

SSFL Santa Susana Field Laboratory

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property

TCL Traditional Cultural Landscape 

TDAT Tribal Directory Assessment Tool 

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UTTR Utah Test and Training Range 

VAB Vehicle Assembly Building

WFF Wallops Flight Facility

WSTF White Sands Test Facility
Overview

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 1

SECTION ONE OVERVIEW

This report is submitted to the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) by 

the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) in compliance with 

Executive Order (EO) 13287, entitled 

Preserve America. Section 3 of EO 13287 

requires NASA to submit a triennial report on 

its progress in identifying, protecting, and 

using historic properties in the agency’s 

ownership, as mandated by the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 

as amended. This report is the eighth report 

prepared by NASA under the EO. It is 

preceded by a baseline report in 2004, a 

progress report in 2005, and triennial reports 

in 2008, 2011, 2014, 2017, and 2020. This

report covers the three-year period from 

fiscal year (FY) 2021 to 2023.

1.1 REPORTORGANIZATION

This triennial report has been prepared for the 

FY21–23 reporting period consistent with the 

ACHP May 2023 Advisory Guidelines 

Implementing Executive Order 13287, 

“Preserve America” Section 3: Reporting 

Progress on the Identification, Protection, 

and Use of Federal Historic Properties 

(ACHP Guidelines). The 2023 ACHP 

Guidelines continue to follow the simplified 

guidelines of 2020 with fewer questions and 

a deemphasis on quantitative data. These new 

guidelines also focus on themes related to 

current ACHP initiatives and administrative 

priorities, including infrastructure, job 

creation, equity, and climate change.

This report has five sections. Section One 

(Overview) presents the major themes and 

challenges driving NASA’s Cultural

1 Public Law 85-568 (72 Stat. 426), 85th Congress, “An Act 

to provide for research into problems of flight within and 

outside the earth’s atmosphere, and for other purposes,”

Resources Management (CRM) Program 

during the current reporting period and into 

the next. Section Two (NASA’s CRM 

Program) presents the basic framework of the 

program as it is currently operating. Sections 

Three (Identifying Historic Properties) and 

Four (Protecting and Utilizing Historic 

Properties) respond specifically to the 

reporting requirements of the EO and the 

ACHP Guidelines and share highlights and 

challenges. Section Five (Partnerships and 

Outreach Supporting the Stewardship of 

Cultural Resources) presents the 

partnerships, outreach, and education that 

NASA has completed during the reporting 

period or is ongoing.

All photos are credited to NASA unless 

otherwise specified in the caption.

1.2 ADIFFERENT KIND OF 

PRESERVATION

The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 

1958 ascribed to NASA three primary 

functions: 1) plan, direct, and conduct 

aeronautical and space activities; 2) arrange 

for participation by the scientific community 

in planning scientific measurements and 

observations to be made through use of 

aeronautical and space vehicles; and 3) 

provide for the widest practicable and 

appropriate dissemination of information 

concerning its activities and the results 

thereof.1 As such, NASA is an agency 

committed to documenting its achievements 

and sharing them with both the scientific and 

lay communities since its inception. Out of 

all federal agencies, NASA is among the 

most readily accessible to the public — not 

only because of the inherent human interest 

in its activities, but also because NASA

(H.R. 12575), enacted 29 July 1958.
Overview

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 2

cultivates its relationship with the public in a 

way that other agencies do not. The viability 

of NASA long term depends upon public and 

political support. NASA engenders that 

support by telling its story and sharing its 

achievements through a broad range of media 

that includes everything from written 

historical publications through NASA’s 

History Office to live broadcasting of historic 

NASA moments such as the February 2021 

landing of the Perseverance rover on Mars 

which attracted 4.2 million viewers.

But the nature of its activities requires NASA 

to utilize its built assets — many of which are 

highly technical or scientific facilities 

(HTSF) — in a manner that is often at odds 

with traditional historic preservation 

approaches. As an agency dedicated to the 

fields of aeronautics research, human 

exploration and operations, science, and 

space technology, NASA routinely modifies, 

upgrades, reconfigures, cannibalizes, and 

replaces its resources; therefore, traditional 

approaches to preservation are often not 

feasible. Alteration inconsistent with the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the 

Treatment of Historic Properties is identified 

as a potential adverse effect under Section 

106, but the SOI standards were written with 

traditional historic buildings in mind.2 In the 

case of HTSF, modification that enables 

continued use may more appropriately be 

viewed as a character-defining feature rather 

than an adverse effect, as it is the active use 

of the resource that ensures its preservation. 

This is an accepted interpretation in the case 

of adaptive reuse of historic buildings under 

the federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit 

program, administered by the NPS.

When the NHPA was enacted, almost three 

years before the Apollo 11 Moon landing, it

2 36 CFR § 800.5(a)(2)(ii).

3 NHPA of 1966, as amended, 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.

was in reaction to the large-scale demolition 

of historic properties that resulted from urban 

renewal and highway construction, and while 

it applied to all federal agencies that “owned, 

administered, or controlled historic 

property,” it did not specifically address the 

kinds of challenges that agencies like NASA 

would face in implementing the law.3

Similarly, the suite of tools developed by the 

Secretary of the Interior (SOI) and National 

Park Service (NPS) have conventional 

architectural resources and structure types in 

mind and are not readily translated into the 

HTSF environment within which agencies 

such as NASA, the Department of Energy, 

and the National Science Foundation operate.

These atypical agencies initially struggled to 

manage the perceived disconnect between 

mission and preservation goals, and given the 

youth of NASA’s resources, a formal 

approach to cultural resources management 

was not a priority. Nevertheless, several 

NASA resources were listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in the 

1970s, including Launch Complex 39 at 

Kennedy Space Center (KSC), the Redstone 

Test Stand at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, 

and the Saturn V Rocket at the United States 

Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville, 

Alabama.

In 1980, Public Law 96-344 An Act to 

improve the administration of the Historic 

Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act of 1935 

(49 Stat. 666) was enacted, directing the SOI 

to conduct a “study of locations and events 

associated with the historical theme of Man 

in Space,” and to recommend ways to 

“permanently safeguard from change the 

locations, structures, and at least symbolic 

instrumentation features associated with this 

theme.”4 The study manifested as theNPS

4 Public Law 96-344, 96th Congress, An Act To improve the
Overview

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 3

National Historic Landmark (NHL) Theme 

Study Man in Space, published in 1985, 

which resulted in the designation of 24 

NHLs, 20 of which were NASA-owned 

resources associated with the Apollo 

Program and the majority of which were less 

than 50 years of age.5

As a result of the study, NASA executed its 

first Section 106 agreement with the ACHP 

that requires NASA to consult with the 

appropriate State Historic Preservation 

Offices (SHPO) prior to altering any of the 

newly identified NHLs, and stipulated 

documentation to be completed prior to 

alteration. But the visibility that the Man in 

Space study brought to federal agency 

management of HTSF — not often thought of 

by non-practitioners as historic properties —

prompted concern among some that the 

Section 106 process would hamper the ability 

to use and reuse the resources.

The challenges facing agencies like NASA 

were acknowledged in the 1991 ACHP 

publication Balancing Historic Preservation 

Needs with the Operations of Highly 

Technical or Scientific Facilities, prepared in 

response to a Congressional request seeking 

counsel on “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 

upgrading of scientific and technical research 

facilities.”6 Issued in part due to NASA 

concerns about the implications of the Man in 

Space study, the ACHP publication aimed to 

demonstrate how historic HTSF could be 

managed consistent with the NHPA, in 

particular Section 106, if the respective 

parties — preservation regulators andagency

administration of the Historic Sites, Buildings and 

Antiquities Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 666), (S. 2680), 8

September 1980.

5 A summary of the study is available online at 

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/butowsky3/

resource managers — understood and 

accounted for one another’s goals. A major 

theme in this publication was the 

acknowledgment that modification is 

expected and necessary to maintain active 

use of HTSF.

In this publication, the ACHP directly 

addressed a persistent barrier to the 

preservation of historic HTSF — the lack of 

awareness within the scientific community of 

the importance of preserving the physical 

sites, buildings, structures, objects, and 

districts where discoveries and advances 

occurred. The ACHP reinforced the need for 

the scientific community to better 

acknowledge that it has a responsibility to 

future generations. It needs to consider its 

legacy and how it can be preserved and 

conveyed, and actively promote and 

encourage this preservation.

Although the development of NASA’s CRM 

Program was a low priority for the agency 

prior to 2004, EO 13287 has proven itself to 

be an effective incentive. Since then, 

NASA’s CRM Program has progressed from 

reactive, Section 106-driven activities with 

highly variable implementation from Center 

to Center, to a fully developed and integrated 

program with established standardized tools 

and procedures that enable proactive, 

consistent Agency-wide CRM as envisioned 

in the NHPA. Under the leadership of the 

Federal Preservation Officer (FPO), with 

support from Headquarters (HQ) 

Environmental Management Division 

(EMD) and the Center Cultural Resources 

Managers (Center CRMs), NASA has 

embraced its NHPA responsibilities as an 

extension of its core mission to share

space0.htm. 6 Available online at https://www.achp.gov/digital-librarysection-106-landing/balancing-historic-preservation-needsoperation-highly.
Overview

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 4

information with the public and views the 

triennial report as an opportunity to assess the 

effectiveness of its efforts to identify, protect, 

and use historic properties.

1.3 FAMILIAR CHALLENGES, 

NEWSOLUTIONS

In 2023, NASA’s awareness of the 

importance of its cultural resources continues 

to grow, and with it the appreciation of the 

physical sites, buildings, structures, objects, 

and districts that tell the story of its 65 years 

of extraordinary accomplishments. However, 

like many federal agencies, NASA faces 

challenges in achieving the stated goal of the 

NHPA to “administer federally owned, 

administered, or controlled historic property 

in a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration 

and benefit of present and future 

generations”7 in an environment of aging 

infrastructure and stagnant to declining 

maintenance budgets.

Aging Infrastructure

When NASA was created by the Space Act 

of 1958, it inherited the legacy properties of 

its predecessor, the National Advisory 

Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), and its 

inventory of existing buildings dating back to 

the 1910s. A period of new construction 

commenced and rapidly accelerated 

following President John F. Kennedy’s 

Address at Rice University on the Nation’s 

Space Effort of 12 September 1962, in which 

Kennedy promoted a national effort to land 

man on the Moon. The pace of new 

construction at NASA leveled off in the 

1970s and has remained relatively consistent 

since (Table 1-1). Approximately half of 

NASA’s United States real property 

assets were built in or prior to 1980.

Table 1-1. NASA Real Property Assets by Decade.

Construction Date % of U.S. Real Property 

Portfolio

1920s <1%

1930s <1%

1940s 7.8%

1950s 7.9%

1960s 23.9%

1970s 7.5%

1980s 11.7%

1990s 12.8%

2000s 12.8%

2010s 14.5%

2020s <1%

Mission-essential buildings planned for 

active use require regular maintenance, 

repair, and upgrades to keep them functional, 

and while work can sometimes be deferred in 

an office or storage building without 

compromising the mission, that is not the 

case for HTSF and other purpose-built assets 

like laboratories, testing facilities, and 

buildings housing highly specialized 

scientific activities that if allowed to decline 

could severely undermine NASA’s ability to 

carry out mission-critical activities. 

However, while NASA’s real property 

portfolio ages and the cost of maintenance 

and upgrades increases, the Operations & 

Maintenance (O&M) budget from which 

these costs are derived has remained flat for 

the last 20 years. Mission-critical assets are 

necessarily prioritized, leaving limited 

funding to go towards lower mission-relevant 

assets, many of which are historic properties. 

Assets that cannot be maintained consistent 

with contemporary functional and safety 

standards must either be modified to conform 

or disposed of.

7 NHPA, 54 U.S.C. § 300101 et seq.
Overview

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 5

Right-Sizing the NASA Portfolio

In order to ensure disposal of obsolete assets 

and to achieve a more affordable facilities 

portfolio, NASA has had a funded demolition 

program in place since 2004. In 2013, this 

was accelerated by NPD 8820, Design and 

Construction of Facilities, which dictated 

that “construction of new NASA facilities 

and/or additions to existing facilities are to be 

offset by a greater than equivalent amount of 

facility disposal until the NASA footprint 

reduction goals are met.” NASA set the 

disposal target at 125 percent of new facility 

square footage.

In 2019, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) issued Memorandum M-20-

03, Implementation of Agency-wide Real

Property Capital Planning, which requires 

NASA and other agencies to “identify, plan 

for, and allocate resources in the annual 

budget formulation process to eliminate 

gaps.” Each agency is required to submit a 

Real Property Capital Planning (RPCP) 

report annually. OMB M-20-03 reasserted 

the “Reduce the Footprint” (RTF) policy and 

required a submittal of annual reduction 

targets for office, warehouse, and owned 

property as a part of the annual RPCP report.

In order to meet these requirements, and to 

address the specific challenges of NASA’s 

aging infrastructure, a federal funding gap, 

and large property holdings, NASA has 

initiated a new approach to right-size its 

portfolio, the Agency Master Plan (AMP).

Agency Master Plan

NASA has identified the need for a more 

integrated approach to master planning, in

which individual Center planning objectives 

are considered within the broader context of 

Agency priorities. The purpose of the AMP is 

to establish an Agency-wide, mission-driven 

approach with a 20-year horizon that ensures 

NASA real property assets are missionready, reliable, and affordable. The 

overarching goals of the NASA AMP are to

1) identify a mission-driven facility portfolio 

that is adaptable to transformation; 2) 

establish a repeatable master planning 

process with consistent stakeholder 

engagement and accountability; 3) identify 

actions to achieve an affordable facility 

portfolio including reduction of unnecessary 

redundancies, consolidation, and 

modernization; 4) identify actions to help 

proactively mitigate risk to mission; 5) 

prioritize sustainability best practices; and 6) 

establish planning principles that help sustain 

and create facilities and sites that inspire the 

NASA workforce. The AMP is the first time 

that NASA has taken on an enterprise 

approach to planning the entire agency real 

property portfolio, addressing broader 

agency challenges, engaging mission 

stakeholders effectively, establishing clear 

links to the Agency-wide budget, and 

identifying specific desired outcomes for all 

real property for the next 20 years.

A key component of the AMP process is the 

Asset Inventory Assessment (AIA). During 

the assessment, each real property asset is 

reviewed and given a score based on its 

mission relevance and facility condition. The 

score is used to determine which of the four 

buckets it is assigned: sustain, invest, 

outgrant/repurpose, and divest. (Figure 1-1). 

Each bucket is described in more detail 

below.
Overview

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 6

Figure 1-1. AMP Asset Bucket Assignment – Mission/Condition Relevance Matrix.

Sustain:

These real property assets have clear mission 

significance, a future need, and are in good 

condition. The goal is to continue general 

maintenance to sustain these assets in their 

current condition. No major/significant 

investments are known to be needed. Section 

106 undertakings on this path may include 

routine maintenance and repair to occur as 

need and funding arises.

Invest:

These real property assets have high mission 

significance, a future need, and are in poor 

condition. The goal is to rehabilitate these

assets to a mission ready condition. Section 

106 undertakings on this path may include 

renovation/modification, major repair, and 

new construction.

Outgrant/Repurpose:

These real property assets have low mission 

significance and no future need but are in 

good condition. The goal is to keep these 

assets and enable their availability for use by 

NASA partners, or to repurpose the assets for 

a higher mission need. Section 106

undertakings on this path include outgrants to 

federal or non-federal entities.

Divest:

These real property assets have a low mission 

significance, no future need, and are in poor 

condition. The goal is to terminate NASA 

ownership of these assets. Historic properties 

on the Divest list are placed in a “path to 

divestment” subcategory, indicating that they 

require additional consideration of 

alternatives to avoid the adverse effects of 

partial or complete demolition. Section 106 

undertakings on the “divest” path include 

mothballing, abandonment, resource transfer 

to federal and non-federal entities, and 

demolition.

Initial AIA lists were developed in 2021 

using facility condition data tracked in 

NASA’s Real Property Management System 

(RPMS) and Mission Relevance (MR) data 

collected through a data call, followed by a 

robust adjudication process. The data 

collected was further refined through a series 

of collaborative workshops in which a 

proposed future state was solidified through 

consensus for each real property asset in 

NASA’s facility portfolio. These AIA
Overview

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 7

workshops were held throughout 2021 and 

2022 at each NASA Center and included the 

participation of Agency and Center Master 

Planners, Mission Directorate 

representatives, Technical Capability 

Portfolio leadership, infrastructure 

stakeholders, and environmental personnel 

including the NASA FPO and Center CRMs. 

In total, more than 700 internal NASA 

stakeholders were involved throughout the 

Agency-wide process. The AIA lists continue 

to be maintained and refined through 

stakeholder collaboration.

The AIA lists are the backbone for the AMP 

and the subsequent Center Master Plans 

(CMPs), which serve as the localized 

implementation of the AMP informed by 

considerations such as Center strategic goals 

and Center-level environmental review. 

NASA intends to finalize the AMP by 2024.

NHPA Compliance under the AMP

Implementation of the AMP through 

individual CMPs will mean an increase in 

undertakings that could affect historic 

properties, and NASA has recognized the 

need for an Agency-wide approach to Section

106 compliance that is aligned with the 

AMPs Agency-wide approach to real 

property planning. As such, in coordination 

with the ACHP and National Conference of 

State Historic Preservation Officers 

(NCSHPO), NASA is pursuing an Agencywide Programmatic Agreement (APA) that 

outlines effective yet practical processes to 

consider cultural resources at NASA Centers 

and showcases its historic properties within 

their larger geographical and historical 

context.

The goals of the APA are as follows:

• To consider the nature of NASA 

Centers as primarily defined by their 

HTSF, and establish procedures that 

acknowledge modification as essential 

to the preservation of those properties;

• To define processes for programmatic 

consultation as part of CMP 

development, to facilitate the 

consideration of alternatives to avoid 

adverse effects at the earliest planning 

stages;

• To establish standard recordation 

measures for all of its historic resources 

that build upon NASA’s already robust 

information sharing infrastructure to 

maximize public access and utility;

• To focus NASA’s limited time, energy, 

and funding on the most significant 

resources and on undertakings that have 

the most potential to affect historic 

properties; and

• To develop mitigation that effectively 

tells the stories of NASA historic 

properties within their larger Center 

and Agency context, and that is 

accessible by and valuable to the 

public. This goal is aligned with 

NASA’s 2022 Equity Action Plan, a 

key component of which is making 

science data more widely accessible.8

The APA is informed by a number of 

planning-level tools that NASA developed 

during the reporting period. Details about 

these tools, some key elements of the APA, 

and the status of APA consultation are 

discussed in Section 2.

8 NASA, 2022 Equity Action Plan, 

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_-

_equity_report_-_v10.pdf, accessed August 2023.
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 8

SECTIONTWO NASA’S CRM 

PROGRAM

2.1 NASALOCATIONS

Agency operations are implemented across 

16 NASA Centers and component facilities 

(collectively referred to as Centers in this 

report) that range greatly in acreage, from 

175 acres to 140,000 acres (Figure 2-1; Table

2-1).

2.2 CRM PROGRAM,POLICY, 

ANDPROCEDURES

Program Organization

Based in EMD at NASA HQ, the NASA FPO 

is a fully dedicated subject matter expert and 

policy maker who communicates between 

HQ and the Center CRMs, drawing from 

insights gained through coordination with the 

ACHP and other agency FPOs to add support 

and grow the program at both the HQ and 

Center levels. Policies and procedures 

developed at the HQ level are carried out by 

the Center CRMs, who are the face of the

CRM Program at the Centers, where most of 

the responsibility for compliance with the 

NHPA lies.

Each NASA Center has a CRM responsible 

for executing the program. The Center CRMs 

are a well-trained group skilled at addressing 

the needs of their particular Center, while 

responding to the concerns of the respective 

SHPOs, Native American Tribes, and 

stakeholders. The development of the 

agency’s CRM Program has benefitted from 

the long tenure of many of the Center CRMs, 

who have retained institutional knowledge

and forged strong working relationships with 

the SHPOs and Center personnel.

Most Center CRMs are not Cultural 

Resources professionals meeting the SOI’s 

Professional Qualifications Standards for 

Archaeology or Architectural History. NASA 

recognizes that this has created a knowledge 

gap, and during the reporting period, hired an 

SOI-qualified architectural historian at GRC. 

In addition, in 2020, NASA made the 

decision to hire one SOI-qualified 

archaeologist and one SOI-qualified 

architectural historian to serve as CRM for 

their respective Centers, but also to be 

“Enterprise” subject matter experts, available 

to support other Centers and NASA HQ as 

needed. In June 2022, KSC hired an SOIqualified archaeologist to fill this role. NASA 

is currently assessing options for hiring an 

Enterprise SOI-qualified architectural 

historian.

The Center CRMs are supported by 

leadership at their Center, as well as support 

from HQ. The Center Director’s role is to 

foster, through words and behavior, an 

environment that promotes awareness of and 

respect for NASA’s cultural resources. Asthe 

most senior person at the Center, the Center 

Director is charged with establishing “a 

process for integrating CRM into Center 

master and mission planning that includes 

early coordination with other programs, 

tenants, and projects, and integration of the 

Center Integrated Cultural Resources 

Management Plan (ICRMP) into other Center 

planning documents.”9

9 NASA, NPR 8510.1A, NASA Cultural Resources 

Management.
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 9

Figure 2-1. Map of NASA Centers and Component Facilities (NEMCON).
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 10

Table 2-1. NASA Centers and Component Facilities.

No. Acronym Name Location Est. Acreage No. Built 

Assets (2023)

1 AFRC Armstrong Flight Research Center California 1954 1,145 207

2 ARC Ames Research Center California 1939 1,874 396

3 GDSN Goldstone Deep Space Communication Complex (component facility of JPL) California 1958 28,170 143

4 GRC Glenn Research Center Ohio 1941 307 199

5 GRC-ATF Glenn Research Center – Armstrong Test Facility Ohio 1956 6,458 166

6 GSFC Goddard Space Flight Center Maryland 1959 1,844 472

7 JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory California 1958 175 387

8 JSC Johnson Space Center* Texas 1962 1,634 417

9 KSC Kennedy Space Center Florida 1958 140,000 919

10 LaRC Langley Research Center Virginia 1917 764 283

11 MAF Michoud Assembly Facility (component facility of MSFC) Louisiana 1964 832 166

12 MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center Alabama 1960 1,841 353

13 SSC Stennis Space Center Mississippi 1962 13,800 419

14 SSFL** Santa Susana Field Laboratory (component facility of MSFC) California 1975 451 33

15 WFF Wallops Flight Facility (component facility of GSFC) Virginia 1959 6,200 625

16 WSTF White Sands Test Facility (component facility of JSC) New Mexico 1962 26,900 224

TOTALS 232,395 5,409

* Includes Ellington Field (ELF) and Sonny Carter Training Facility (SCTF).

** NASA is no longer carrying out operations at SSFL but is engaged in environmental remediation in order to 

excess the property.
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 11

Policy

NASA codifies its policies in NASA Policy 

Directive (NPDs) and implementing 

procedures in NASA Procedural 

Requirements (NPRs). Cultural resources fall 

under NPD 8500.1, NASA Environmental 

Management, and are governed by NPR 

8510.1A, Cultural Resources Management 

(CRM NPR). Last updated in 2017, the CRM 

NPR presents the authorities and 

responsibilities of the agency with respect to 

the NHPA and other cultural resources laws 

(e.g., the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act [ARPA]) in a manner that 

affirms the agency’s commitment to “be a 

steward of cultural resources... [ensuring] 

preservation of their significance to NASA’s 

mission, communities, and the history of our 

Nation.”

The CRM NPR is currently being revised to 

update roles and responsibilities and to 

outline the required elements of the Center 

ICRMPs, based on an Agency-wide ICRMP 

template that was adopted in FY20. The 

current NPR expires in September 2024.

Awareness and identification of historic 

properties is reinforced through crossreferencing in other NPRs, including:

• NPR 4300.1C NASA Personal Property 

Disposal Procedural Requirements;

• NPR 4310.1A Artifact Identification and 

Disposition;

• NPR 8800.15C Real Estate Management 

Program;

• NPR 8810.1A Center Master Planning; 

and

• NPR 8820.2G Facility Project 

Requirements.

At the request of the Community of Practices 

(CoPs), the FPO is participating in the update 

of several of these NPRs, to facilitate 

consideration of cultural resources in Center 

undertakings.

The CRM NPR also addresses agency 

responsibilities beyond NHPA compliance, 

including treatment of archaeological 

resources, Tribal consultation, coordination 

with National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), professional qualifications and 

training, inventory and records management, 

and NASA artifacts and heritage assets —

categories of resources separate from but 

overlapping with historic properties as 

identified in the NHPA.

Training

Because most Center CRMs are not cultural 

resources practitioners by trade, training is 

important, and is a requirement of the CRM 

NPR. If the Center CRM is not a CRM 

professional as defined by 62 Fed. Reg. 

33708, they are required to complete training 

within six months of starting employment.

Beyond baseline training, the CRM NPR 

requires at least one professional 

development training course a year. This is 

often fulfilled through participation in one of 

the many online or in-person courses the 

ACHP offers, as well as National 

Preservation Institute courses, NPS National 

Center for Preservation Technology and 

Training courses, or training offered by a 

SHPO, such as the Texas Historical 

Commission’s Real Places Training, which 

brings together professionals and volunteers 

from diverse disciplines and organizations 

across the state. Additional learning 

opportunities are available during the annual 

CRM meetings, where NASA’s FPO and 

Center CRMs come together for face-to-face 

training sessions and information exchange.
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 12

During the reporting period, training on tribal 

relations was a focus for NASA. In 2022, for 

example, the NASA Environmental Division 

hosted an Agency-wide Environmental 

Operational Meeting at Langley Research 

Center (LaRC) that included a training 

session by the former Senior Tribal Liaison 

for the Department of Defense entitled 

“Meeting Consultation Obligations to Native 

Americans.” It was attended by all of the 

Center CRMs, either in person or virtually, as 

well as other environmental personnel and 

EMD leadership.

Several CRMs attended additional training 

on tribal relations during the reporting period, 

including the National Preservation 

Institute’s Native America 101, Forging 

Meaningful Land Acknowledgements 

through Conversation and Hard Truths, and 

the ACHP’s Early Coordination with Indian 

Tribes for Infrastructure Projects.

The FPO periodically provides training to 

non-CRM personnel, including facilities, 

planning, real estate, and demolition program 

managers to enhance understanding of how

CRM fits into these processes and to make 

others aware of NASA’s CRM 

responsibilities. In addition, the FPO will 

reach out to non-CRM personnel when 

relevant learning opportunities arise, such as 

FRED personnel attending and the ACHP 

Section 106 training.

Integration with other Programs

NASA’s approach to successful cultural 

resources management is based upon the 

understanding that CRMs cannot operate in a 

vacuum, but must rather be fully integrated 

into NASA’s planning activities, where much 

of the decision making that will affect 

historic properties occurs. The CRM NPR 

states that successful management and 

protection of historic properties — known

and potential — require consideration by 

numerous parties early in the planning 

process, well in advance of any physical 

activities. Accordingly, personnel engaged in 

real property management, master planning, 

mission planning, construction, maintenance, 

geographic information systems (GIS), and 

NEPA are ascribed responsibilities in the 

CRM NPR to proactively communicate with 

the Center CRMs so that historic properties 

can be effectively considered. Center CRMs 

meet regularly with personnel in those 

departments.

At the HQ level, project proponents 

coordinate with the FPO to programmatically 

integrate cultural resources considerations. 

For example, the FPO has been an active 

participant in the AMP process, and master 

planners have reviewed drafts of the APA, a 

collaboration on long-term planning for the 

agency.

Other personnel identified in the CRM NPR 

as CRM stakeholders include:

• Assistant Administrator for the Office of 

Strategic Infrastructure (OSI) (also the 

Senior Policy Official for purposes of 

EO 13287);

• Agency CRM Program Manager (also 

the FPO);

• HQ Facilities and Real Estate Division;

• Mission Program and/or Project 

Managers;

• Office of General Counsel;

• Center Directors;

• Center CRMs;

• Center Construction of Facilities 

Program Managers;

• Center Facility Project Managers;
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 13

• Center NEPA Managers;

• Center GIS Managers;

• Center Chief Counsel;

• Center Master Planner;

• Center Real Property Accountable 

Officer; and

• Center Property Disposal Officer.

This list demonstrates the many departments 

and personnel involved in identifying, 

protecting, and using historic properties, 

from senior leadership at HQ, whose 

decisions affect large numbers of resources 

Agencywide, to individuals managing 

specific projects that may only affect a single 

resource.

Guidance Documents

In addition to policy, NASA has developed 

guidance for the implementation of the CRM 

Program including:

• Guidance for Implementation of NASA 

Cultural Resources Management 

Requirements as Defined in NASA 

Procedural Requirements 8510.1A 

(2012); and

• NASA Desk Reference on NEPA and 

NHPA Coordination (2015).

2.3 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

TOOLS

NASA utilizes a variety of tools to manage 

the CRM Program at both the Agency and 

Center level, including ICRMPs and 

Programmatic Agreements (PAs). These 

tools are discussed in more detail below.

ICRMPS

Each NASA Center is required to have in 

place an ICRMP that “serves as a guide to the 

Center’s CRM Program and outlines the 

Center’s cultural resources management 

practices and procedures pursuant to Section 

110 of the NHPA for historic properties.” 

The ICRMP is developed in coordination 

with the Center’s other significant planning 

documents, including master plans and asset 

management plans, and includes a five-year 

program management plan, as well as

Standard Operating Procedures to assist 

non-CRM personnel in navigating CRM 

situations such as working with tenants or 

inadvertent discoveries.

ICRMPs are reviewed annually to capture 

any major changes over the last year, and 

revised every five years, using a template that 

NASA developed in 2020.

Center PAs

Proactive, inclusive resource surveys at the 

Centers have laid the groundwork for more 

effective, informed, and efficient 

management of the Section 106 process 

through Center PAs. In addition to NASA’s 

Agency-wide PA for NHLs, discussed below, 

six Centers have general Center-wide PAs in 

place (Table 2-2). Centers are encouraged to 

include provisions in their PAs for actions 

that can be taken to avoid adverse effects to 

historic properties, such as archaeological 

monitoring and adherence to the SOI’s 

guidelines when modifying historic 

buildings.
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 14

Table 2-2. NASA Programmatic Agreements.

Center No. Status Scope

Agency wide

1 Executed NHLs

1 In development Agency wide (APA)

AFRC 0 N/A N/A

ARC 1 In development Center wide

GDSCC 0 N/A N/A

GRC 0 N/A N/A

GRC-ATF 1 Expired July 11, 2023, not intending to renew Center wide

GSFC 0 N/A N/A

JPL 0 N/A N/A

JSC 1 Executed Space Shuttle Assets

KSC 1 Executed Center wide

LaRC 1 Executed (extended to 2025) Center wide

MAF 0 N/A N/A

MSFC 1 Executed; Renewal underway, pending update to 

gate-to-gate survey Center wide

SSC 0 N/A N/A

SSFL 1 Executed Center wide

WFF 1 Executed Center wide

WSTF 0 N/A N/A

Agency NHL PA

In 1989, in response to the Man in Space

NHL Theme Study, NASA entered into an 

Agency-wide PA with the National 

Conference of State Historic Preservation 

Officers (NCSHPO) and the ACHP for the 

management of NASA-owned NHLs. The 

study recommended 24 sites for NHL 

designation among 12 types of resources. 

Those resource types include NACA wind 

tunnels, rocket engine development facilities, 

rocket engine test stands, rocket test 

facilities, rockets, launch pads, Apollo 

training facilities, Apollo hardware test 

facilities, unmanned spacecraft test facilities, 

tracking stations, mission control centers, and 

other support facilities. The NHL PA 

categorizes undertakings under three

categories and stipulates specific 

consultation and recordation requirements 

for each category. Category A includes 

demolition, relocation, removal or excessing 

of significant elements of the Landmark from 

the NRHP nomination, new construction not 

compatible with major parts of the original 

structure, and change in function, purpose, or 

use of the resource. Category B undertakings 

include activities that will not alter the 

characteristics of the resource which were 

specified as the reason for its Landmark 

designation, including: replacement of 

historic hardware or components, 

modification of the original structure or 

equipment used in engineering structures, 

buildings, or housing facilities, and new 

construction that is compatible with the
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 15

existing structure, purpose, and operation of 

the resource. Category C undertakings 

involve none of those specified in Categories 

A or B.

Each year, NASA submits a report that 

summarizes its activities under the NHL PA, 

including any mitigation completed, during 

the past calendar year. In 2021, there were 8 

undertakings to NASA NHLs, all of which 

fell into NHL PA Category C. In 2022, there 

were three undertakings to NASA NHLs, all 

of which fell into NHL PA Category C. Data 

is not yet available for 2023.

The NHL PA continues to provide benefit to 

NASA by allowing NASA to meet its Section 

106 requirementsin an expedited manner. All 

of NASA’s NHLs are HTSF, and 

modifications are essential to keep them 

active and supporting current and future 

NASA missions. The majority of 

undertakings to NASA NHLs do not have the 

potential to cause adverse effects, so the NHL 

PA allows CRMs to focus their limited 

resources on other higher-risk projects.

APA (in progress)

The NASA APA has been in development 

since 2019 and recent progress has been 

moving the document towards execution 

hopefully in FY24. The purpose of the APA 

is to create an alternate process by which 

NASA can meet its responsibilities to 

manage its U.S. real property assets under 

Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA in a 

manner that accommodates NASA’s unique 

challenges; namely, the HTSF nature of its 

Centers, the aging infrastructure, and the 

overall unaffordability of its real property 

portfolio.

The APA will apply at all NASA Centers that 

are not operating under a Center-wide PA. 

Several of the Centers who were considering

development of their own Center-wide PAs 

in 2020 have now decided to join the APA 

because of the broad benefits and efficiencies 

generated by programmatic mitigation and 

consideration of Section 106 from an 

Agency-wide perspective. Those Centers 

with N/A in the Status column in Table 2-2 

will be Participating Centers in the APA once 

executed. Further, Centers with currently 

executed PAs will have the option to utilize 

the APA once their own PA expires.

NASA delivered the first draft APA to the 

ACHP, NCSHPO, Tribes, and other 

Consulting Parties in April 2022, and a 

revised draft in November 2022. Beginning 

in December 2022 and continuing through 

February 2023, NASA hosted a series of 

virtual working sessions with the Consulting 

Parties on specific topics within the 

agreement document to receive feedback and 

talk through scenarios in real time. 

Consulting Parties who participated in these 

sessions included the ACHP, NCSHPO, 

National Association of Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers (NATHPO), individual 

SHPOs, representatives from Tribes 

identified by Center CRMs as having an 

interest in NASA undertakings, and the 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

(NTHP). Along with the traditional draft 

review and written comment responses, these 

working sessions provided invaluable 

feedback and collaborative discussion on 

ways to improve efficiency for both NASA 

and the Consulting Parties in the Section 106 

process.

In March 2023, the ACHP staff hosted the 

NASA FPO, KSC Enterprise CRM, and three 

NASA Environmental and Medical Contract 

(NEMCON) contractors at their office in the 

National Building Museum in Washington, 

DC for a two-day working retreat on the APA 

(Figure 2-2). Various scenarios were tested
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 16

using the process laid out in the current draft 

of the APA and much progress was made on 

clarifying and refining the various 

efficiencies and unique concepts of the APA. 

The ACHP staff participants included Chris 

Daniel, Alexis Clark, Chris Koeppel, and 

Kelly Fanizzo.

Figure 2-2. NASA and ACHP Retreat in March 

2023. Back row, left to right: Katie Stefanic and 

Carrie Albee (Gray & Pape), Chris Daniel (ACHP), 

and Emily Dabashinsky (HSG). Front row, 

Rebecca Klein (NASA FPO) and on screen, 

Katherine Zeringue (KSC CRM).

In June 2023, the NASA CRMs met for a 

face-to-face retreat with the FPO onsite at 

KSC. The ACHP’s Chris Daniel joined this 

meeting, for a session devoted to the APA. 

Center CRMs tested the concepts of the APA 

using recent and upcoming undertakings 

from their Centers, to see if they could 

“break” the APA’s process. This real-time 

testing method showed that the APA worked 

well for most scenarios and provided 

efficiencies for both the Center CRMs and 

the SHPOs.

NASA is hopeful that the APA will meet the 

intent of Section 106 while responding to 

NASA’s unique resources, mission 

requirements, and management constraints.

2.4 DATA MANAGEMENTTOOLS

NASA recognizes that awareness is an 

essential part of protecting historic 

properties. Accordingly, personnel across 

numerous departments must have ready 

access to the evaluation status of resources so 

that they can account for known historic 

properties in their planning, and consider 

whether additional investigations are needed. 

NASA’s three primary asset tracking 

databases — NETS, RPMS, and GIS — are 

fully integrated, ensuring wider access and 

visibility, and Agency-wide consistency and 

standardization of data. Data is synchronized 

every day, ensuring that the information on 

historic properties is consistent and current.

NETS

Since 2010, the NETS database has been the 

primary vehicle for data management, 

internal and external reporting, and 

recordkeeping for the CRM Program. It 

includes a comprehensive list of all buildings, 

structures, sites, and objects — both built and 

archaeological — within NASA’s inventory 

by Center, with the date of construction, 

resource name, historic status (i.e., NRHP 

evaluation), and the date of SHPO 

concurrence. NETS also indicates if assets 

are located within a historic district, if they 

are governed by an existing PA, and if they 

are on the Center demolition list.

When resources are evaluated for listing in 

the NRHP, the results are entered into NETS 

by the Center CRMs. The historic status of 

resources is then imported to the RPMS and 

Institutional GIS on a daily basis.

NETS may also be used to upload and store 

cultural resources surveys, agreement 

documents, consultation documentation, 

planning documents (e.g., ICRMPs), and 

other related records that can then be viewed
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 17

by the other Centers and by NASA HQ. This 

document-sharing ability facilitates the 

transfer of knowledge among the NASA 

CRM community.

NETS’ final key feature is in internal and 

external reporting. The data stored in NETS 

can be used to generate reports to aid in the 

management of NASA’s resources. NETS 

also allows NASA HQ to issue and manage 

data calls to the Centers to assist in meeting

reporting requirements on a number of 

cultural resources topics, including property 

inventories and status, archaeological 

surveys, consultation results, and heritage 

tourism activities.

Center CRMs are responsible for ensuring 

the data in NETS is accurate and up-to-date, 

reflecting the most recent surveys and 

determinations of eligibility. NETS data is 

assessed at least annually; however, in FY23 

NASA initiated a thorough review of all 

NETS data and corresponding 

documentation. This review, which will 

compare each property record in NETS 

against its survey report, evaluation, 

concurrence, applicable agreement 

documents, and other related materials, will 

ensure the accuracy and fidelity of the data. It 

is anticipated to be completed in FY24.

In FY23, NASA updated the NETS system to 

include the following information for each 

property:

• Resource Significance Framework 

(RSF) model score, for unevaluated 

properties less than 50 years old, 

discussed more in Section 3;

• HTSF status, based on the 2021 

HTSF Inventory, discussed more in 

Section 3; and

• Asset Management Category, as 

defined under the draft APA.

When the APA is executed, these data fields 

will assist CRMs in the identification and 

management of those resources.

RPMS

NETS data is integrated into the NASA 

RPMS, a database routinely consulted by real 

property managers, master planners, Project 

Managers, and facilities and maintenance 

staff. The results of NRHP evaluations are 

exported from NETS into the RPMS on a 

daily basis so that the historic status (i.e., 

NRHP eligible, NRHP ineligible, not 

evaluated) of real property assets is available 

to facilities and real property personnel 

involved in the management of NASAs 

infrastructure.

GIS

In addition to NETS and RPMS, NASA 

FRED maintains a central institutional GIS 

database for the built environment that is 

accessible agency wide. It includes 

information on the historic status of 

resources, as well as historic district 

boundaries (Figure 2-3). During the reporting 

period, NASA created a CRM-specific GIS 

application for archaeological survey and site 

information as well. Access to the 

archaeological site layers is controlled and 

released on a need-to-know basis to protect 

site location information.
NASA’s CRMProgram

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 18

Figure 2-3. GRC-Lewis Field Institutional GIS, showing Center boundaries (yellow), historic district 

boundaries (red), and buildings color-coded by historic status.
Identifying Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 19

SECTION THREE IDENTIFYING 

HISTORIC PROPERTIES

3.1 INVENTORYSTATUS

NASA’s inventory of historic properties has 

diversified from three NRHP-listed 

structures to include built resources, historic 

districts, archaeological sites, one traditional 

cultural property, and one sacred site. Tables 

3-1 through 3-4 present a breakdown of 

NASA’s inventory of historic properties by 

Center and the status of archaeological 

survey.

Real Property

NASA’s inventory of real property consists 

of 5,241 assets within the United States. 

Approximately half of NASA’s real property 

assets are categorized as buildings and the 

other half as structures.

Approximately 52 percent of NASA’s U.S. 

real property assets have been evaluated for 

NRHP eligibility under at least one context; 

approximately 73 percent over the age of 50 

have been evaluated. NASA has determined 

628 (12 percent) real property assets are 

eligible for listing on the NRHP, either 

individually or as a contributing resource to 

another property or district. Historic 

properties are identified by gate-to-gate 

surveys, with periodic updates at the Centers 

and, to a lesser extent, through Section 106 

consultation. Four Agency-wide surveys 

have been conducted — the NHL Theme 

Study Man in Space, completed in the 1980s, 

an Agency-wide Space Shuttle Program 

Survey in the 2000s, the HTSF study in 2021, 

and the RSF in 2022.

Archaeological Resources

Unlike the proactive gate-to-gate 

identification of real property, NASA

archaeological investigations are driven by 

upcoming undertakings, and limited to Areas 

of Potential Effects (APEs). This is 

intentional, as archaeological surveys are in 

themselves destructive to sites, so NASA 

avoids unnecessary site disturbance that may 

be caused by shovel testing. Several Centers 

have predictive models/sensitivity models 

that they use to inform identification efforts 

(Table 3-3).

Tribal Consultation

Centers are responsible for identifying tribes 

that may have historic/cultural ties to the 

area, and for establishing relationships to 

ensure meaningful and timely consultation in 

the identification and protection of tribal 

cultural resources. Currently NASA consults 

with approximately 80 tribes across the 

agency, to varying degrees.

Centers use various tools to identify Tribes 

that may be interested in consulting, 

including the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD) Tribal Directory 

Assessment Tool (TDAT) database, and 

coordinating with SHPOs and other agencies 

in the area. Centers revisit their “consulting 

tribes” list during their annual ICRMP 

updates, and update and revise as necessary.

Other Asset Categories

Personal Property

The CRM NPR statesthat “efforts to identify, 

evaluate, and treat historic properties shall 

consider personal property, either 

individually or as a contributing element to a 

property” (Section 2.2.2). NASA defines 

personal property as “property of any kind, 

including equipment, materials, and supplies, 

but excluding real property and certain naval
Identifying Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 20

vessels.”10 Only a small percentage of 

NASA’s personal property has the potential 

to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. 

Examples include the Crawler Transporters, 

the clock and flagpole, and Mobile Launcher 

Platforms at KSC, which were identified as 

historic properties during the Agency-wide 

surveys of Space Shuttle-related resources in 

the 2000s. The rarity of such examples does 

not justify significant expenditure on 

identification efforts; however, NASA 

acknowledges the responsibility and educates 

CRMs and other personnel routinely working 

with personal property accordingly. The 

manner in which personal property is to be 

managed is codified in the NPRs for CRM, 

personal property disposal (NPR 

4300.001C), and artifact identification and 

disposition (NPR 4310.001A), all of which 

include the requirement for Center CRMs to 

be consulted prior to disposition.

Artifacts

NASA’s definition of artifacts differs from 

that common across most federal agencies. 

Within NASA, artifacts are unique objects 

that document the history of the science and 

technology of aeronautics and astronautics. 

Their significance and interest stem mainly

from their relationship to the following: 

historic flights, programs, activities, or 

incidents; achievements or improvements in 

technology; our understanding of the 

universe; and important or well-known 

personalities (NPR 4100.1D).

Space-related artifacts may include, but are 

not limited to, objects such as major program 

vehicle components, unique devices, 

prototype and proof test articles, payloads or 

individual instruments, flight spares, 

astronaut tools and paraphernalia, design 

concept models, and high-fidelity simulators. 

Aeronautics artifacts include, but are not 

limited to, experimental aircraft, test and 

simulation devices, prototype systems, 

structural and test models, and flight-tested 

materials (NPR 4310.1).

The class of assets defined as artifacts by 

NASA includes some that may be eligible for 

listing in the NRHP (e.g., space vehicles, 

models, and simulators) either individually, 

or as a contributing resource to another 

property or district, and as such the 

identification and management of artifacts 

that are historic properties, however few, 

falls under the responsibilities of NASA’s 

CRM Program.

10 NPR 8510.1A, NASA Cultural Resources Management, 

Appendix A (Definitions).
Identifying Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 21

Table 3-1. Identified Historic Properties by Center.

Center

Built Resources*

Archaeological 

Sites NHLs** Individually 

NRHP Listed***

Individually 

Eligible Historic Districts Contributing Resources****

AFRC 0 0 1 1 4 0

ARC 4 52 1 2 47 0

GDSN 1 0 1 0 0 0

GRC/ATF 2 0 3 1 87 0

GSFC 1 0 0 1 32 0

JPL 2 0 8 1 30 0

JSC 2 0 76 1 70 0

KSC 1 45 42 8 97 31

LaRC 3 0 12 1 111 12

MAF 0 0 6 0 0 0

MSFC 4 0 26 0 0 7

SSC 1 0 1 1 23 2

SSFL 0 0 9 2 9 1

WFF 0 0 2 0 0 2

WSTF 0 0 4 2 23 3

TOTALS 21 97 192 21 533 58

*Includes United States real property assets as well as personal property.

**NHLs comprised of multiple resources are counted as a singleproperty.

***Does not include designated NHLs, which are automatically listed in the NRHP.

****Contributing includes individually-listed or -eligible properties that contribute to historic districts, so there is some overlap between categories.
Identifying Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 22

Table 3-2. NASA Historic Districts by Center.

Center Name No. Contributing 

Resources

AFRC 1 Armstrong Flight Research, Development, and Test Historic District 4

ARC

1 NAS Sunnyvale Historic District (aka Shenandoah Plaza Historic District) 41

1 Wind Tunnel Historic District 6

GDSCC 0 N/A N/A

GRC/ATF 1 Lewis Field Historic District 87

GSFC 1 Goddard Space Flight Center Historic District 32

JPL 1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory Space Exploration Historic District 30

JSC/ELF 1 Johnson Space Center Historic District 70

KSC

1 Kennedy Space Center Railroad System Historic District 7

1 Launch Complex 39: Pad A Historic District 26

1 Launch Complex 39: Pad B Historic District 21

1 Solid Rocket Booster Disassembly and Refurbishment Complex Historic District 9

1 Shuttle Landing Facility Historic District 4

1 Orbiter Processing Historic District 2

1 NASA-Owned CCAFS Industrial Area Historic District 28

LaRC 1 NASA Langley Historic District 111

MAF 0 N/A N/A

MSFC 0 N/A N/A

SSC 1 Rocket Propulsion Test Complex Historic District 23

SSFL

1 Alfa Test Area Historic District 5

1 Bravo Test Area Historic District 0

1 Coca Test Area Historic District 4

WFF 0 N/A N/A

WSTF

1 300 Area Propulsion Test Area Historic District 15

1 400 Area Propulsion Test Area Historic District 8

TOTALS 21 533
Identifying Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 23

Table 3-3. Evaluation Status of Real Property Assets by Center.

Center

50 Years of Age and Older Less than 50 Years of Age All Ages

Total 

No.

No.

Evaluated

%

Evaluated

Total 

No.

No.

Evaluated

%

Evaluated

Total 

No.

Total 

Evaluated

%

Evaluated

AFRC 62 61 98.4% 145 84 57.9% 207 145 70.0%

ARC 264 183 69.3% 132 76 57.6% 396 259 65.4%

GDSN 72 30 41.7% 71 2 2.8% 143 32 22.4%

GRC/ATF 261 236 90.4% 104 68 65.4% 365 304 83.3%

GSFC 113 41 36.3% 349 26 7.4% 462 67 14.5%

JPL 130 84 64.6% 99 9 9.1% 229 93 40.6%

JSC 205 205 100.0% 212 166 78.3% 417 371 89.0%

KSC 240 192 80.0% 679 398 58.6% 919 590 64.2%

LaRC 127 121 95.3% 156 72 46.2% 283 193 68.2%

MAF 103 42 40.8% 63 8 12.7% 166 50 30.1%

MSFC 166 134 80.7% 187 48 25.7% 353 182 51.6%

SSC 102 59 57.8% 317 9 2.8% 419 68 16.2%

SSFL 28 13 46.4% 5 2 40.0% 33 15 45.5%

WFF 295 170 57.6% 330 15 4.5% 625 185 29.6%

WSTF 88 81 92.0% 136 68 50.0% 224 149 66.5%

TOTALS 2,256 1,652 73.2%11 2,985 1,051 35.2% 5,241 2,703 51.6%

11 Note that unevaluated resources over 50 include those that are generally considered to have a low potential to be 

NRHP eligible, such as utility lines, sewer features, light fixtures, street furniture, pump houses, storage sheds, and 

other highly utilitarian resources.
Identifying Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 24

Table 3-4. Archaeological Resources at NASA Centers.

Center Total Acreage Sensitivity 

Model

No. of Sites 

Identified

No. of Sites 

Evaluated

No. of Sites 

NRHP Listed or 

Eligible

AFRC 1,145 No 6 6 0

ARC 1,874 Yes 10 10 0

GDSN* 28,170 Yes N/A N/A N/A

GRC/ATF 6,765 Yes 8 0 0

GSFC 1,844 No 1 1 0

JPL 175 No 0 0 0

JSC 1,634 No 0 0 0

KSC 140,000 Yes 189 83 31

LaRC 764 No 22 22 12

MAF 832 No 1 1 0

MSFC 1,841 No 22 15 7

SSC 13,800 No 34 2 2

SSFL 451 No 57 1 1

WFF 6,200 Yes 10 10 2

WSTF 26,900 No 95 8 3

TOTALS 232,395 455 159 58

* Army-owed Ft. Irwin retains responsibility for all archaeological survey and management at GDSN.
Identifying Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 25

3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF 

HISTORIC PROPERTIES:FY21–23 

HIGHLIGHTS

During the reporting period, NASA has 

continued to identify historic properties 

among its real property assets through 

proactive, comprehensive identification via 

periodic gate-to-gate surveys of resources 45 

years and older. Additionally, the 

consideration of resources less than 50 years 

of age is becoming standard practice at 

NASA Centers, reflecting an increasing 

appreciation of the exceptional importance of 

these assets.

As shown in Table 3-3, NASA has evaluated 

approximately 73 percent of assets 50 years 

of age and older. The CRM NPR states that 

gate-to-gate surveys must be completed at all 

NASA Centers. With the completion of its 

first gate-to-gate survey at Stennis Space 

Center (SSC) in early 2020, every Center has 

received a gate-to-gate survey.

As NASA considers the challenges facing the 

agency in coming years, it is seeking new and 

more efficient ways to identify historic 

properties. 

Changes in Identification Processes during 

the Reporting Period

HTSF Study

Building on the 1991 ACHP publication 

Balancing Historic Preservation Needs with 

the Operations of Highly Technical or 

Scientific Facilities, in 2021 NASA

developed a definition and set of criteria for 

identifying facilities that qualify as HTSF, 

specifically:

• The facility was built, installed, or 

established for unique technological 

engineering or scientific research 

purposes, including housing unique 

technological equipment or 

instruments; and

• The facility is directly associated 

with scientific experimentation, 

discovery, or mission, or

• Is integral to research and 

development, unique equipment 

manufacturing or assembly, training, 

observation and communications, 

mission control, or exploration in 

support of scientific 

experimentation, discovery, or 

mission implementation.

NASA then used these criteria to develop an 

inventory of HTSF at each Center. 

Preliminary inventories have been reviewed 

by master planners and real property 

personnel at both HQ and the Centers, as well 

as the Center CRMs. With new data that is 

being produced as part of the AMP effort, 

NASA is currently refining the inventories. 

NASA will use the HTSF study to guide the 

identification and management of its historic 

HTSF.

Resource Significance Framework

The RSF, completed in September 2022, 

provides a historic context and NRHP 

thresholds for properties less than 50 years of 

age, along with a predictive model to help 

identify and manage resources <50 that may 

be eligible under Criteria Consideration G 

(CCG), such as the 80x120 foot subsonic 

wind tunnel at Ames Research Center (ARC), 

built in 1985 and determined individually 

eligible for the NRHP (Figure 3-1). The RSF
Identifying Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 26

provides a list of the types of properties with 

the greatest ability to convey NRHP 

historical significance under CCG, based on 

a representative sample of NASA’s most 

historic significant achievements over the last 

50 years (1973 in this case). These events 

cover three major areas of NASA’s missions 

and programs including Aeronautics, Human 

Exploration and Operations, Science, and 

also Architecture. The RSF also provides a 

discussion of the significant themes with 

which these achievements may be understood 

for the purposes of NRHP evaluation. This 

analysis forms the basis of a predictive model 

(RSF Model) which assesses the likelihood 

of an individual resource <50 to be eligible 

for listing in the NRHP under CCG. NASA 

can use the RSF Model to guide the 

management of resources <50 at each Center. 

This model has also been incorporated into 

the APA’s management strategy for Sections 

106 and 110.

Figure 3-1. The 80x120 foot subsonic wind tunnel 

at Ames Research Center (ARC).

APA

The in-progress APA has robust processes 

for the identification of historic properties, 

including continued and updated gate-to-gate

12 Denise Lineberry, “The NASA Langley Research Center 

Historic District,” accessed online,

surveys at the participating Centers, archaeological 

investigations and predictive modeling, and 

incorporating data from both the RSF and the HTSF 

Study.

Cultural Resources Surveys

Langley Research Center Update

Architectural Survey of Historic District

In 2010, a PA with NASA, the Virginia 

SHPO, and the ACHP was developed and 

executed to facilitate the implementation of 

the LaRC Master Plan, which included a 20-

year revitalization program to construct new 

facilities, renovate and/or demolish nonessential facilities, and perform general 

infrastructure maintenance and improvement 

activities at LaRC. The PA was extended for 

an additional five years in 2019 untilJanuary 

2025.

In anticipation of negotiating an additional 5-

year extension to the LaRC PA, an update to 

the comprehensive survey and evaluation of 

LaRC is being conducted and anticipated to 

be complete in December 2023. The original 

Phase I survey was conducted in 2007 and 

2009 and identified the LaRC Historic 

District, which was listed in the Virginia 

Landmarks Register in 2011 and the NRHP 

in 2012.

The original survey and NRHP nomination 

recorded 252 resources with 143 contributing 

and 99 noncontributing resources. The

historic district includes the current center 

boundary, as well as the original NACA 

buildings now owned by Langley Air Force 

Base.12

The current field survey was completed in 

March and May 2023 (Figure 3-2). The 

LaRC Historic District has 111 contributing

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews

/rn_HistoricDistrict.html, July 2023.
Identifying Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 27

resources, 12 of which are also individually 

eligible and three NRHP-listed NHL 

resources. The survey evaluated six 

contributing resources that have been 

significantly renovated and five newly 

surveyed resources, which are noncontributing to the LaRC Historic District. In 

addition, eight resources were identified as 

demolished, including six contributing and 

two non-contributing resources to the LaRC 

Historic District.

As part of the update effort, SHPO files for 

all historic resources (contributing and 

noncontributing) at LaRC will be updated 

with new GIS data, architectural descriptions 

noting any changes, and digital photographs. 

Additionally, newly identified resources that 

have achieved 50 years of age and select 

resources with potential significance under 

Criteria Consideration G will be evaluated as 

potential contributing resources to the LaRC 

Historic District.

Figure 3-2. Building 1251A, contributing resource 

to the LaRC Historic District and individually 

eligible under Criteria A and C.

3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF 

HISTORIC PROPERTIES:FY21–23 

CHALLENGES

NASA CRMs identified the lack of funding 

for cultural resources survey to be the most 

acute identification challenge of the reporting 

period. Other challenges include staff 

turnover and the constant need for 

reeducation on the importance of historic 

resources for facilities management and 

outside architecture/engineering firms. Most 

of the NASA CRMs wear multiple hats at 

their Centers, meaning they have limited time 

to spend supporting the CRM program in 

addition to their other job duties. At KSC, 

management of cultural resources is further 

complicated by a lack of well-organized 

records and inconsistent and sometimes 

inaccurate data.

CRMs also reported that SHPOs often do not 

respond to Section 110 surveys and 

determinations of eligibility in a timely 

manner or at all, which means the status of 

historic resources are often in question. 

NASA views these surveys as a valuable 

management tool well worth the investment, 

but is finding the lack of SHPO response 

limits their utility.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 28

SECTION FOUR PROTECTING 

AND UTILIZING HISTORIC 

PROPERTIES

4.1 PROTECTION THROUGH 

UTILIZATION

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

the Treatment of Historic Properties 

recognize four approaches: preservation, 

rehabilitation, restoration, and 

reconstruction. Intended for a broad audience 

that includes both practitioners and the 

general public, the standards are described as 

“common sense principles” that “promote 

historic preservation best practices.” The 

standards reflect the typical lifecycle of 

historic buildings–construction, active use, 

underuse and decline, decay and 

abandonment, revitalization and reuse. But as 

anyone who has been involved in the process 

knows, the level of effort and expense that is 

required to restore an abandoned building to 

modern active use is considerable and 

beyond the capabilities of many potential 

stewards. It is because of this that the NHPA 

places the responsibility to steward historic 

properties under its care on the federal 

government. This is also why 

preservationists advocate so strongly for the 

continued use of historic properties, even 

when historic fabric and integrity will be 

compromised.

For an agency like NASA, the four 

approaches described in the SOI standards 

don’t quite fit NASA’s mission and are often 

not feasible for HTSF resources. As 

previously discussed, NASA cannot afford to 

maintain assets that do not have a viable, 

active use that is critical to, or directly 

supports, mission goals. Accordingly, 

NASA’s preservation philosophy is 

protection through utilization. Recognizing 

its limitations, NASA fulfills its NHPA

stewardship role through two primary 

avenues: 1) ensuring active use; and 2) 

documentation during active use and prior to 

disposal. Active use generally requires 

modification, which may compromise 

historic fabric or integrity, but it ensures the 

asset’s preservation, and in some cases may 

enhance its significance. When an asset 

becomes obsolete, alternate uses are 

considered, but these uses must support 

mission goals or a viable non-NASA user 

must be found.

NASA does not generally have the ability to 

restore or preserve historic properties for the 

sake of doing so, and if an acceptable use 

cannot be found the asset will face disposal. 

Historical significance will be documented, 

as appropriate, and made available via 

NASA’s robust and diversified public 

information-sharing programs. While the loss 

of a historic property is never the preferred 

outcome, it is mitigated by recordation that is 

often more readily accessible to the public 

than the physical resource ever was or could 

be within the confines of a secure facility.

Planning

In practice, preservation of NASA’s historic 

properties is realized mostly at the Center 

level, where CRMs work with Project 

Managers and other decisionmakers to 

identify options that respond to the particular 

factors at play and local resources available 

to NASA at the time. The inclusion of the 

“path to divestment” process in the AMP, 

however, signals a culture shift at NASA 

towards greater consideration of preservation 

at the HQ level, and its full integration into 

Agency-wide master planning. By including 

historic property considerations in the AMP 

process, NASA has created an avenue to 

ensure decisions made at every level are 

informed by the historic status of the 

property.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 29

4.2 ACTIVE PRESERVATION: 

FY21–23HIGHLIGHTS

Leasing

NASA continues to use leases to generate 

revenue and to preserve historic properties 

that might otherwise be demolished. NASA’s 

leasing program primarily operates under two 

authorities: Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) and 

Section 111 of the NHPA. NASA uses EULs 

to enter into agreements with private sector 

entities, state and local governments, 

academic institutions, and other federal 

agencies for lease of non-excess, 

underutilized NASA properties and facilities. 

EULs are not limited to historic properties 

but may be used when historic properties are 

underutilized. Section 111 of the NHPA 

authorizes federal agencies to enter into 

leases for the use of historic properties — i.e., 

those that are listed in or eligible for listing in 

the NRHP — and apply the derived proceeds 

towards the preservation of NRHP-listed 

properties through maintenance, capital 

revitalization, and real property 

improvements.

NASA policy requires that its leases relate to 

and support the NASA mission of research, 

education, and exploration. This effectively 

restricts how, and to whom, Centers can lease 

properties, making it somewhat difficult for 

Centers to take advantage of both EUL and 

Section 111 leases. Additionally, NASA’s 

“mission focus” dictates that only those 

facilities required to support the NASA 

mission be retained in the real property 

portfolio.13

13 NASA Real Estate Desk Guide (2016), 

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codej/codejx/Assets/Docs/

DeskGuide_TAGGED.pdf. 14FY2022 Agency Financial Report,

Since its introduction in 2003, the EUL has 

proven to be successful in helping to offset 

the maintenance and operation costs of 

NASA’s real property assets. In FY2022, 

NASA generated over $9.2M in net revenue

from 47 EULs across seven Centers.14

Centers have used EUL proceeds to fund 

renovations, roof replacement, elevator 

maintenance, parking lot repairs, and other 

improvement projects.

EULs are well established at ARC and KSC,

which were the first Centers to be authorized 

to use them. EULs of historic properties at 

KSC include:

• Shuttle Landing Facility Area, 

constructed in the 1970s, leased to Space 

Florida (Figure 4-1);

• Orbiter Processing Facilities 1, 2, and 3, 

constructed in 1977, leased to Boeing; 

and

• LC-39A, constructed in 1966, leased to 

SpaceX.

Figure 4-1. Aerial view of the NRHP-eligible 

Shuttle Landing Facility Area at KSC.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2022

_afr_version5_111522_c.pdf
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 30

ARC leases several NRHP-listed buildings 

on the main campus within the Shenandoah 

Plaza Historic District including:

• Building 18 (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

[UAV]) Research Building), constructed 

in 1933, is leased to InformArt;

• Building 19 (Industry Partners Building, 

former Bachelor Enlisted Quarters), 

constructed in 1933, is leased to the U.S. 

Geological Service; and

• Building 20 (Administration Building, 

former Bachelor Office Quarters), 

constructed in 1933, is leased to 

Singularity University.

EULs are also in place at Michoud Assembly 

Facility (MAF), including three properties 

determined individually eligible for listing in 

the NRHP:

• Buildings 103 (Manufacturing Building, 

constructed in 1943) and 114 (High-bay 

Addition, constructed in 1982) are leased 

to multiple tenants for aerospace 

manufacturing; and

• Building 420 (Acceptance and Prep 

Building, constructed in 1965) is leased 

to LM Wind for the manufacturing of 

windmill blades.

In 2023, SSC executed an EUL of the A-2 test 

stand, a NHL that was built in the mid-1960s 

to test liquid rocket engines at altitudesimulated conditions. The tenant, Relativity 

Space, Inc., plans to modify the test stand in 

order to conduct Stage 1 tests of their Terran 

R rocket. This historic resource is currently 

mothballed, so the EUL is a preservation win 

for the SSC A-2 test stand, bringing it back 

into use.

NASA has executed two leases using the 

Section 111 authority, both at ARC. As with 

EULs, NASA applies mission-oriented 

requirements, but Section 111 leases must 

also adhere to restrictions set by the NHPA. 

Section 111 allows federal agencies to enter 

into out-grants of historic property that is not 

needed for current or projected agency 

purposes, provided that the agency head 

determines that the lease will adequately 

insure the preservation of the asset(s) (Figure 

4-2). Additionally, Section 111 leases require 

consultation with the ACHP and the 

respective SHPO. Lease proceeds can be 

applied towards administrative costs, 

maintenance and repair, code upgrades, and 

other related expenses associated with the 

revenue-generating lease asset, or another 

historic property under the jurisdiction or 

control of the federal agency, including 

properties that contribute to the historic 

district in which the leased property is 

located.

NASA HQ is actively promoting the use of 

Section 111 leases for its historic properties 

as the preferred lease option for the 

protection and maintenance of historic 

properties and, where applicable, the historic 

districts in which they are located. The 

additional layer of NHPA requirements may 

discourage some Centers from utilizing 

Section 111 leases, but as Center personnel 

become more familiar with them, it is hoped 

that the agency will see new leases under this 

authority in the next reporting period.

Lease agreements for NASA historic 

properties are reviewed by NASA CRMs and 

the FPO prior to execution to ensure they 

include language regarding the historic status 

and requiring the lessee to maintain and 

utilize the resource consistent with NASA’s 

stewardship obligations under the NHPA.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 31

Figure 4-2. The Section 111 lease with Planetary Ventures stipulates the reskinning of historic Hangar 1 at 

ARC. More information on Hangar 1 can be found below.

NASA is currently considering ways to 

formalize and standardize this process and 

language. A new policy is being codified that 

would make Section 111 leases the default 

for leasing NASA historic properties.

Modification that Enables Continued Use

Rehabilitation of Building 25 at Ames

Research Center

Building 25 is located within the Shenandoah 

Plaza Historic District at ARC in Santa Clara 

County, California. Shenandoah Plaza 

Historic District is significant for its 

association with coastal defense and naval 

technology and has made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of our 

history, and for reflecting the distinctive type, 

period, method of construction, and high 

artistic values that are represented in the 1933 

station plan and Spanish Colonial Revival 

buildings. Historically, Building 25 was the 

entertainment facility for the military

15 NASA Historic Preservation Office, Moffett Field 

History,

personnel assigned to Moffett Field. Building 

25 has been unused for at least 40 years and 

had peeling paint, some water leaks, and was 

in need of repair (Figures 4-3 to 4-7). NASA 

is not currently using the building, and the

inside is being renovated for tenant use, 

including asbestos abatement and 

replacement of all the lower-level building 

systems, using the proceeds from the NHPA 

Section 111 lease at ARC.

During the course of this work, several issues 

of a never-before seen newsletter entitled 

“Zero Hour” from 1933 were uncovered and 

preserved in acid-free storage and digitized 

for the public to view (Figure 4-8).15 This 

discovery preserved a one-of-of-a-kind 

memento from the early history of the 

building.

Building 25 is an excellent example of 

Section 111 lease proceeds being used to 

preserve historic properties at ARC.

https://historicproperties.arc.nasa.gov/history/index.html#z

erohour.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 32

Figure 4-3. Interior of Building 25’s auditorium 

before renovation.

Figure 4-4. Interior of Building 25's auditorium 

after renovation.

Figure 4-5. Exterior entry of Building 25 at ARC 

prior to renovation.

Figure 4-6. Exterior asbestos containment at 

Buiding 25.

Figure 4-7. Exterior of Building 25 at ARC after renovation.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 33

Figure 4-9. Historic photo of the completed 

Hangar 1 (Moffett Field Historical Society 

Museum).

Figure 4-8. Scanned copy of the Zero Hour 

newsletter from October 30, 1933 found during 

the renovation of Building 25 at ARC.

Re-cladding of Hangar 1 at Ames Research 

Center

Historic Hangar 1 at ARC has been leased to 

Planetary Ventures, LLC since 2014 as part 

of the Section 111 lease of the Moffett 

Federal Airfield. Pursuant to the lease 

agreement, Planetary Ventures is responsible 

for the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of 

Hangar 1. After several years of consultation 

with NASA and the California SHPO (CA 

SHPO), Planetary Ventures adopted a design 

that is reminiscent of the original Hangar skin 

(Figure 4-9). The recladding of Hangar 1 

began in mid-2022 and is currently in 

progress (Figures 4-10 and 4-11).

Figure 4-10. Status of the Hangar 1 re-cladding 

project on July 12, 2023.

Figure 4-11. Status of the Hangar 1 re-cladding 

project on August 22, 2023.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 34

Hangar 1 was built in 1933 at Naval Air 

Station Sunnyvale to house the USS Macon 

airship. At 1,133 feet long, 308 feet wide, and 

198 feet high, the hangar is a focal point of 

the Shenandoah Plaza Historic District, 

which is listed in the NRHP under Criterion 

A for its association with coastal defense and 

naval technology and Criterion C reflecting 

the distinctive type, period, and method of 

construction and high artistic value in the 

1933 naval station plan and buildings. 

Hangar 1 is also designated as a Naval 

Historical Monument and as a California 

Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the 

San Francisco section of the American 

Society of Civil Engineers.16

Artemis I Launch from Launch Complex 

39B, KSC

Artemis I isthe first in a series of increasingly 

complex missions that will enable human 

exploration to the Moon and Mars. The 

primary goals for Artemis I are to 

demonstrate Orion’s systems in a spaceflight 

environment and ensure a safe reentry, 

descent, splashdown, and recovery prior to 

the first flight with crew on Artemis II. The 

launch of Artemis I on November 16, 2022 

from historic Launch Complex 39B had 

960,000 peak live viewers and as of August 

2023 has had more than 10 million YouTube 

plays. Launch Complex 39B was first used 

on May 18, 1969, for the Apollo 10 launch to 

rehearse the first Moon landing. In Figure 4-

12, Artemis I is stacked on top of the Space 

Launch System (SLS) in High Bay 3 of the 

historic Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) 

on August 16, 2022. All of the work 

platforms have been retracted in preparation 

for the rollout to Launch Complex 39B.

The VAB was completed in 1966 for the 

construction of the Apollo/Saturn V moon 

rocket, the largest rocket made by humans at 

that time. The VAB is one of the largest 

buildings in the world by area, covering 8 

acres, and is 525 feet tall and 518 feet wide. 

The VAB doors are the largest in the world at

456 feet high and take 45 minutes to 

completely open or close. In Figure 4-13, the 

SLS, the most powerful rocket in the world, 

carries the Orion spacecraft, launched the 

Artemis I flight test at 1:47 am EST from 

Launch Complex 39B at KSC.

Figure 4-12. Artemis I stacked on top of the Space 

Launch System in High Bay 3 of the historic VAB 

at KSC on August 16, 2022.

16 NASA Ames, “Hangar One Restoration Project,” 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/hangar-one-restorationproject, accessed July 2023.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 35

Figure 4-13. Artemis I Launch from KSC’s historic Launchpad 39B on November 16, 2022.

4.3 ACTIVE PRESERVATION: 

FY21–23CHALLENGES

Balancing Environmental Remediation 

with Historic Preservation at Santa Susana 

Field Laboratory

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) is 

located on 2,850 acres in southern California. 

The SSFL opened in 1948 as a site for 

developing and testing rocket engines for 

defense and exploration purposes. NASA 

administers approximately 451 acres of SSFL 

that was used historically for research, 

development, and testing of rocket engines 

associated with the Apollo and Space Shuttle 

Programs through the 1980s. These 

operations resulted in the release of 

chemicals into the soil and groundwater. 

Inactive since 2006, NASA is currently 

conducting environmental remediation 

activities in the NASA-administered portion 

of the site.

SSFL is located in an area rich with 

significant Native American cultural 

resources that include some of the bestpreserved pictographs in southern California 

(Figure 4-14). Native American tribes

including the Chumash, FernandeñoTataviam, and Gabrieleño-Kizh have 

identified the SSFL as a Traditional Cultural 

Property/Traditional Cultural Landscape 

(TCP/TCL) and Sacred Site under EO 13007, 

and continue to use the area today for

ceremonies.

Figure 4-14. Detail photo of the Burro Flats 

Painted Cave site.

The SSFL cleanup activities have the 

potential to adversely affect the identified 

cultural sites of importance to the tribes. In 

2014, NASA entered into a PA with the CA 

SHPO and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 36

Indians to consider the impacts of the cleanup 

to Native American resources, and NASA 

continues to engage with the Native 

American community in order to understand 

the Native American perspective on SSFL 

and the surrounding region, including the 

uses and associations of the Burro Flats Site 

and other archeological and cultural sites 

located in NASA-administered areas (Figure 

4-15). In 2014, the Sacred Sites Council was 

created and serves as an advisory board made 

up of representatives from tribes that have 

historical ties to the area. It ensures

transparency and strong communication 

regarding the protection of Native American 

cultural resources throughout demolition and

cleanup activities at SSFL.

NASA is currently facilitating and 

participating in engagement activities 

between the Sacred Sites Council and the 

state agencies overseeing the cleanup to 

determine how NASA can achieve a cleanup 

at NASA-administered areas of SSFL that is 

protective of public health and the 

environment with the least possible impact to 

Native American cultural resources. This 

remains an example of the inherent 

challenges agencies may face in balancing 

cleanup responsibilities and stewardship 

responsibilities.

Figure 4-15. A view of the culturally significant landscape at SSFL.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 37

SECTIONFIVE PARTNERSHIPS 

AND OUTREACH: SUPPORTING 

THE STEWARDSHIP OF 

CULTURAL RESOURCESFY21–23

NASA actively seeks creative ways to 

manage its historic properties and has 

welcomed opportunities to partner with other 

public and private entities during the 

reporting period. Such partnerships have 

allowed NASA to achieve more than it would 

be able to do on its own due to both staff and 

budget limitations, and as such they enable 

NASA to be a better steward of its historic 

properties. Several examples from the 

reporting period are presented below.

5.1 TRIBAL PARTNERSHIPSAND 

CONSULTATION

Oak Grove Revitalization Project in Burro 

Flats Cultural District, Santa Susana Field 

Laboratory

As previously mentioned, SSFL is located in 

an area rich with significant Native American 

cultural resources that include petroglyphs 

and pictographs. Native American tribes 

have identified the entire SSFL as a 

TCP/TCL and Sacred Site under EO 13007. 

NASA submitted the nomination of the Burro 

Flats Cultural District to the NRHP as a TCP 

to the CA SHPO for review and concurrence 

in February 2021.

Within the Burro Flats Cultural District is a 

grove of coastal live oak trees, a species of 

concern in California. The tribes identified 

this grove as culturally significant, and it is a 

contributing element of the TCP. The trees 

also attract and provide shelter for wildlife. In 

2018, after nine years of drought, the 

Woolsey wildfire burned through SSFL and 

destroyed much of the oak grove (Figure 5-

1). A NASA post-fire assessment indicated

concerns about the next generation of oaks. 

With the canopy mostly gone, there was 

limited shade to protect new seedlings as they 

grow. The NASA SSFL team gathered 

thousands of acorns, and in consultation with 

tribes, began experimenting with growing 

seedlings in an onsite greenhouse and then 

transplanting them when they were mature 

enough. Oak acorns are now collected each 

fall from native oak trees. Once mature 

enough, the seedlings are planted along the 

drip line of the existing oak trees to augment 

the population (Figure 5-2). Currently, 13 

oak trees survive in Burro Flats of the 24 that 

were transplanted as seedlings. This project 

has been ongoing since 2021. This positive 

working relationship between SSFL and 

Tribes, whose cultural heritage is not always 

apparent to non-Native individuals, is one 

that NASA encourages at all its Centers, and 

has been enhanced by the FPO’s increased 

collaboration with tribes Agencywide as part 

of the 2021 Presidential Memorandum on 

Tribal Consultation and Strengthening 

Nation-to-Nation Relationships.

Figure 5-1. The SSFL Oak Grove destruction after 

the 2018 Woolsley fire.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 38

Figure 5-2. Seedlings in the SSFL greenhouse for 

the Oak Grove revitlization project.

NASA Carbon Monitoring System 

BlueFlux Outreach

The BlueFlux project began in 2020 as a 

three-year, 1.5-million-dollar project led by 

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center 

(GSFC). The project aims to develop a 

database of carbon dioxide and methane 

fluxes (intakes and emissions) for mangrove 

ecosystems in Florida and the Caribbean.

Mangrove ecosystems take carbon dioxide 

out of the atmosphere and produce methane 

in the oxygen-deprived soils, which is 

emitted into the atmosphere. The objective of 

the BlueFlux project is to track carbon 

dioxide removals and methane emissions to 

better understand the role of mangrove 

ecosystems in mitigating climate change.

Data collection for this project includes 

collecting measurements in the air, 

vegetation, soil, and water. This involves a 

series of low-level flights over Everglades 

National Park and Big Cypress National Park 

to take measurements from the air; and

pedestrian surveys through flooded 

mangroves to test soil, water, and vegetation. 

A total of five field campaigns are planned 

over a two-year period from 2022 to 2023.

NASA GSFC, in consultation with the NPS, 

determined that the fly-overs and field 

surveys constitute an undertaking requiring 

consultation under the NHPA. NASA GSFC 

coordinated with NASA KSC, the nearest 

Center, to identify tribes that might have ties 

to the area to consult under the NHPA and 

NEPA. NASA’s consultation, which 

concluded in August 2022, included 3 tribes: 

the Seminole Tribe of Florida, the 

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida and 

the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma. Based on 

concerns expressed by one tribe, NASA 

GSFC agreed to change the flight path of the 

Florida Everglades flyover, to avoid ancestral 

lands and a tribal reservation.

During consultation, the Miccosukee Tribe of 

Indians of Florida expressed interest in being 

part of the discussion regarding mangrove 

reforestation and greenhouse gas research; 

the research aligns with the Miccosukee’s 

dedication to understanding climate change 

and the protection of the mangroves, which 

are an integral part of both their history and 

future. NASA GSFC coordinated with the 

Miccosukee to encourage attendance at 

NASA’s Community Day Open House in 

October 2022. The open house was open to 

the public with displays, guest speakers, and 

a tour of a Beechcraft King Air aircraft, 

(Figures 5-3 to 5-5). Approximately 50 

people attended, including high school 

students, the public, Park representatives, and

members of the Miccosukee.17 NASA GSFC 

continues to work with the Miccosukee to 

develop further plans for educational 

outreach for the tribal student population 

over the course of this project.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 39

Figure 5-3. Field survey team in flooded mangrove 

system.

Figure 5-4. Flyer invitation for Community Day 

Open House.

Figure 5-5. Tour of a Beechcraft King Air aircraft for the BlueFlux open house event.

17 Ben Poulter, newsletter for the Florida Coastal 

Everglades Long Term Eco Research Network, dated 

October 20, 2022.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 40

2021 EO 13175 Tribal Forum and 

Listening Session

In January 2021 President Biden issued a 

Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and 

Strengthening Nation-to-Nation 

Relationships. Reaffirming the commitment 

to meaningful consultation with tribal 

officials originally laid out in the 2000 EO 

13175, Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, the 2021 

Memorandum required each agency to 

develop a detailed plan of action to 

implement the policies and directives of EO 

13175. In support of the 2021 Memorandum, 

NASA hosted a virtual forum and listening 

session with tribal leaders and representatives 

on January 11, 2023. The goal of the forum 

was to begin conversations with federally 

recognized tribes, and to solicit feedback on 

how NASA can enhance its consultation 

process and its engagement in areas of 

potential shared interests.

The virtual forum and listening session was 

attended by 48 tribal leaders and 

representatives from 19 tribal nations and 17 

NASA representatives (Figure 5-6). 

Participating tribes included Blue Lake 

Rancheria, Chmehuevi Indian Tribe of the 

Chemehuevi Reservation, Chickahominy 

Indian Tribe, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, 

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde, Hoopa 

Valley Tribe, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, 

Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Knik Tribe, 

Lummi Nation, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, 

Native Tribe of Kanatak, Native Village of 

Atka, Northwestern Band of the Shoshone 

Nation, Passamaquoddy Tribe, Pinoleville 

Pomo Nation, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal of 

Michigan, Santa Ynez Band of Chumash 

Indians, Skagway Traditional Council, 

Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, and United 

Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians. 

Welcoming remarks were prerecorded by

NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, Deputy 

Administrator Pam Melroy, and Colonel 

Nicole Mann, the first indigenous woman in 

space, who provided comments from the 

International Space Station (ISS). An 

opening invocation to the virtual forum was 

offered by Ms. Nakia Zavala and her

daughter, Hannah Lint, of the Santa Ynez 

Band of Chumash Indians. In addition, the 

pair offered a performance of the Chumash 

Red Tail Hawk song.

Figure 5-6. Screenshot of the opening of the 

virtual forum and listening session.

The remainder of the session was opened to 

the participants, to offer comments, concerns, 

requests, or recommendations regarding 

opportunities to improve NASA’s 

engagement with tribal governments. Tribes 

were also invited to submit written comments 

via an online comment form or through 

email. Input received can be summarized as 

follows:

• Comments expressed limited familiarity 

with NASA’s work and its current 

engagement and consultation activities 

with tribal nations.

• Interest in Science Technology, 

Engineering, Mathematics (STEM) 

partnerships and educational 

opportunities for pre-college students 

and rural communities. Those comments 

were provided to the Minority
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 41

University and Research Education 

Project (MUREP) for American Indian 

Alaskan Native STEM Engagement 

(MAIANSE) within NASA’s Office of 

STEM Engagement for further action.

• Interest in science opportunities, 

specifically areas for collaboration 

between NASA and tribes.

• Comments focused on providing tribes 

access to NASA data for their tribal 

research projects, particularly in regard 

to landscape monitoring and 

management. Suggestions and comments 

from the forum were provided to 

NASA’s Earth Science Division and 

Indigenous Peoples Initiative for further 

action.

• Recommendations for NASA’s 

consultation process with tribes 

emphasized the importance of 

meaningful consultation, need for 

transparency, and requests for sufficient 

notice and adequate information to 

engage in consultation.

• One comment requested information on 

small business opportunities and was 

forwarded to NASA’s Office of Small 

Business.

• Comments expressed general 

appreciation of NASA’s support, 

partnering, and outreach efforts.

NASA-specific resources were shared during 

the forum in response to specific comments 

or questions. These resources included 

NASA’s Office of STEM Engagement; the 

MAIANSE Program; NASA’s Office of 

Procurement; the Develop National Program; 

the Prizes and Challenges Program; and the 

Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, Ocean Ecosystem 

(PACE) mission. NASA is working to review 

the feedback and determine the best path for 

addressing the comments related to processes

for compliance with EO 13175, which will be 

considered in the development of the Plan of 

Action.

5.2 INTERAGENCY 

PARTNERSHIPS

Partnership with Air Force on Mars 

Sample Return

Mars Sample Return (MSR), a joint project 

by NASA and the European Space Agency 

(ESA), is a proposed mission to return Mars 

surface samples back to Earth. The mission 

would return Mars samples being collected 

by the Perseverance rover, already on Mars, 

and land them in Department of Defense’s 

(DoD’s) Utah Test and Training Range 

(UTTR), under the jurisdictional control of 

the Department of the Air Force (DAF), 

managed by Hill Air Force Base (AFB). The 

collection, containment, retrieval, and return 

of the samples is considered Tier 1 of the 

MSR project. Once the landing is secured on 

earth, the samples would then be moved for 

study and better understanding of Mars, the 

second Tier of the mission.

The Utah landing site required Section 106 

consultation under the NHPA, including 

government to government consultation with 

21 tribes.

In 2023, NASA executed a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) with the DAF, 

designating the Air Force as the lead Federal 

Agency on the MSR Tier I Section 106 

consultation effort, in order to leverage the 

new PA that the Air Force recently executed 

with the Utah SHPO. The Air Force, 

specifically AFB, partnered with NASA to 

ensure their PA covered Earth Return 

Retrieval Actions, such as MSR. NASA’s 

ability to utilize DAF’s PA streamlines the 

consultation and mitigation for MSR and
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 42

future NASA actions. The PA includes 

stipulations for archeological monitoring and 

outlines potential mitigation measures to 

resolve any adverse effects. Under the MOU, 

NASA will remain the lead for tribal 

consultation throughout Mars Sample Return 

Tier I.

5.3 OUTREACH AND 

EDUCATION

Internal Outreach and Education

Center emphasis on internal education and 

training provides a new way to garner Center 

support for preservation initiatives and 

programs. NASA CRMs regularly give 

awareness trainings to NASA personnel 

during pre-construction meetings, and Permit 

Review Board meetings. CRMs also brief 

new hires in the Facilities Engineering 

Branch to educate them about CRM and the 

Section 106 process. At ARC, the CRM 

regularly meets with the NASA Native 

American Advisory Group and the NASA 

Native American Artifacts Working Group to 

educate about cultural resources, land 

acknowledgements, and consultation with 

tribes. At LaRC, the CRM conducts quarterly 

history tours for new hires.

Kennedy Space Center Tour of Elliot

Plantation

Elliot Plantation is the southern-most intact 

British sugar plantation in North America, 

dating to the 18th century. At its height, the 

plantation consisted of 2,585 acres between 

the Indian River and Mosquito Lagoon. 

Records indicate between 75 and 90 enslaved

18 Susan Parker, Canaveral National Shoreline Historic 

Resource Survey, National Park Service, Titusville, 

Florida, 2008.

Africans were brought to construct and run 

the plantation. It contained two working 

settlements, indigo works, a sugar factory, 

rum distillery, two villages to house enslaved 

people, two overseer houses, several 

outbuildings, roads, canals, bridges, and 

docks. The plantation was abandoned, and 

the livestock and machinery were sold after it 

was raided by Spanish privateers following 

Spain’s declaration of war against Great 

Britain in June 1779.18

Archaeological investigations led by NPS’ 

Southeast Archaeological Center in 2008 and 

2009 recorded and mapped features 

associated with Elliot’s plantation within the 

KSC property (Figure 5-7). The Elliot 

Plantation sugar works area contains the 

oldest standing sugar processing facility in 

North America and the plantation is 

considered to be one of the most significant 

and well-preserved known African American 

landscapes. In 2022 and 2023 during 

Juneteenth and Black History Month 

respectively, events were planned to honor 

the contributions of Black Americans in 

history. A virtual tour of the Elliot Plantation 

site and a pre-recorded webinar featuring the 

NPS archaeologist who led the 

archaeological investigations was available 

to KSC staff. Additionally, in person tours for 

staff were held on June 14, 2022 and on 

February 16, 2023. The tours had 96 

attendees in total and discussed the Black 

individual’s perseverance in the face of great 

adversity (Figures 5-8 and 5-9). In 2023 for 

Juneteenth, KSC also published a short video 

describing the history of the plantation and 

provided a virtual tour of the ruins on 

YouTube for the public.19

19 NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, “Elliot Sugar Plantation 

Ruins at Kennedy Space Center,” accessed online, 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMEiZ1dAnm4, July 

2023.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 43

Figure 5-7. Archaeological remains of the Elliot Plantation on NASA's KSC. Credits: NPS.20

Figure 5-8. NASA staff at the morning tour of the Elliot Plantation at KSC.

20 Costa, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/plantation-ruins-250-year-old-history-preserved-at-kennedy, July 2023
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 44

Development of Internal CRM SharePoint

Site

During the reporting period, NASA 

developed an internal CRM SharePoint site. 

This site is intended for non-CRM NASA 

personnel and provides for the first time an 

Agency-wide resource where staff can look 

around, learn, and ask questions about 

NASA’s historic resources. There is general 

program information, points of contact, a 

document library, and a schedule with 

upcoming Community of Practice meetings 

and training opportunities (Figure 5-9).

External Education and Outreach

During the reporting period, NASA has 

continued to develop and maintain 

partnerships that not only seek to preserve 

historic properties but also maintain a place 

in the public consciousness. While NASA

makes an extraordinary amount of 

information available to the public via the 

Internet, the agency is keenly aware that the 

physical locations and assets resonate with 

the public in a way that online sources do not. 

One indicator of this is the yearly attendance 

figures: the two most popular Centers are 

Johnson Space Center (JSC) and KSC, both 

of which received, prior to the SARS-CoV2, 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19)

pandemic, over 1.5M visitors a year. During 

the pandemic, Centers were not open to the 

public for short periods of time, but many 

offered virtual programs during this time. 

Visitation is now climbing back towards prepandemic numbers. As NASA considers the 

challenges facing the agency in coming 

years, it is seeking new ways to encourage 

community engagement and overall 

investment in protection and use of historic 

properties.

Figure 5-9. Screenshot of the NASA Internal CRM SharePoint site.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 45

CRMs Present at NPS Symposium

NASA CRMs were able to attend sessions at 

the NPS National Center for Preservation 

Technology and Training’s Preserving the Racefor 

Space: Small Steps and Giant Leaps 2023 

symposium while in Florida for the NASA 

CRM face-to-face. The symposium included 

two NASA speakers on the agenda: 

Katherine Zeringue, KSC CRM, gave a 

presentation on “Historic Preservation 

through Adaptive Reuse at Kennedy Space 

Center;” and Sandra Tetley, JSC CRM, 

presented “Preserving the ‘Cathedral’: 

Restoration of the Apollo Mission Control 

Center” with Dr. Adam Graves.

Increased Visitation at Johnson Space

Center

In 2019, NASA completed a six-year effort 

to restore the Apollo Mission Operations 

Control Room 2 (MOCR-2) to its Apollo-era 

condition. MOCR-2 is located within 

Building 30, the Christopher C. Kraft, Jr. 

Mission Control Center (MCC), at JSC, 

which was originally constructed in 1964 and 

designated an NHL in 1985. MOCR-2 first 

supported the Gemini IV mission in 1965 and 

continued managing missions with the 

Apollo Program from 1967 to 1972, Skylab, 

Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, and finally the 

Space Shuttle Program from the mid-1970s 

through 1992. In 1992, the room was 

deactivated following the addition of 

Building 30S, when mission operations were 

transferred to the newly operational White 

Flight Control Room. MCC was used as a 

tour stop for periodic NASA events. 

Discussions at JSC about the possibility of 

restoring the MOCR first began around this 

time but were never completed. Funding 

efforts began in 2013 and concluded in 2018, 

when the restoration work commenced.

The fully restored MOCR features consoles, 

mission medallions, upholstery, seats, 

wallpaper, and carpet, that were all either 

cleaned and restored to their original 

condition or recreated using original samples 

(Figure 5-10). The Grand Opening and 

Ribbon Cutting of the newly restored Apollo 

MCC was celebrated in June of 2019 and on 

July 20, 2019, the remaining team members 

of the Lunar Landing Team, White Team, 

were at their consoles at the exact time of 

landing, 50 years later.

The opening of this new publicly accessible 

exhibit space has increased heritage tourism 

at JSC, even despite the closure for several 

months in 2020 during the COVID-19 

pandemic. After the shutdown, timed tickets 

were required for the visitor center, limiting 

the number of people inside. Regular ticket 

sales resumed in 2022. As part of the 

restoration and long-term preservation plan, 

NASA placed limits on the numbers of 

people who can access the MOCR floor, and 

has recently raised ticket prices by 50%. It is 

not yet known how this price increase will 

impact overall visitation numbers.

Figure 5-10. Restored MOCR-2, showing recreated 

computer screens (foreground) and viewing 

screens (background).
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 46

In 2021, JSC received 881,928 visitors, and

by 2022, the number climbed to over one 

million, with 1,147,868 people visiting the 

space center that year. As of May 27, 2023, 

501,100 people have already visited JSC, 

making it likely that this calendar year will 

also soar past the one million visitor mark. By 

preserving this incredible space, NASA 

allows future generations to learn about the 

Apollo 11 Moon landing in the restored 

rooms of the Mission Control Center where 

history was made.

Public Programs

Centers offer a variety of programs to

encourage community engagement and 

investment. At LaRC, the CRM collaborates 

with Center intern and post-doc program 

coordinators to provide tours of cultural 

resources. The Armstrong Flight Research 

Center (AFRC) hosts an annual Earth Day 

celebration as well as other conservation 

events which generally attract between 30 

and 200 people. Additionally, the AFRC 

Visitor Center reopened in the spring of 

2023, which included new exhibits and 

refurbished attractions. Glenn Research 

Center (GRC) hosts open houses as well as 

tours of the historic facilities at Lewis Field 

and Neil A. Armstrong Test Facility. There is 

also an offsite visitor center at the Great 

Lakes Science Center in Cleveland, Ohio.

At ARC, large public events remain 

suspended since the COVID-19 pandemic, 

but the new, offsite Ames Visitor Center at 

Chabot Space & Science Center in Oakland, 

California opened in November 2022. There 

are also self-guided tours in Shenandoah 

Plaza Historic District for the public, and 

virtual tours of facilities, among other virtual 

events.

SSFL Donation to Edwards Air Force Base

Museum

As part of the mitigation for demolition of 

some historic resources, often through 

MOAs, NASA is able to donate artifacts to 

museums to share NASA knowledge with a 

larger audience. In December 2020, the SSFL 

CRM worked with interested parties from the 

Edwards U.S. Air Force Base Flight Test 

Museum to identify items from the Bravo 

Test Stand area that had value for curatorial 

institutions. The Bravo test area was built 

between 1955 and 1956 and was used to test 

rocket engines and components from the 

Apollo era to the Space Shuttle era (Figure 5-

11). In 2021, the Bravo Test Stand “tiki 

torch” flares were removed and stored on site 

for future curation. In 2022, they were 

delivered to Edwards Air Force Base for 

curation at the museum (Figure 5-12). The 

CRM is currently working to identify 

artifacts for future curation at the Coca Test 

Stand area.

Figure 5-11. 1960 Photo of Bravo Test Stand 

undergoing a hot fire test.
Protecting andUtilizing Historic Properties

EO 13287 Section 3 Triennial Report (FY21–23) 47

Figure 5-12. 2022 Transport of Bravo Test Stand 

“tiki torches” to U.S. Air Force Flight Test 

Musuem at Edwards Air Force Base.

Use of CRM Website for APA Consultation

Since November 2022, NASA has used the

CRM website to share drafts of the APA with 

the Consulting Parties and the general public, 

along with flow charts, recordings of past 

meetings, consultation meeting schedules, 

and other relevant updates about the APA’s

progress (Figure 5-13). The final copy of the 

RSF is also on the CRM webpage. The APA 

subpage has a frequently asked questions 

section and contact information for how to 

get in touch with the APA team.

5.4 SUMMARY

NASA’s efforts to protect and utilize historic 

properties during the reporting period have 

been positive, and as shown above, Centers 

are making use of a range of tools available 

to them to meet NHPA stewardship goals. 

But agency experience has also reinforced 

that the most successful protection is active 

utilization — either for educational or 

heritage tourism purposes, or in direct 

support of mission. As NASA enters FY24, 

the agency hopes to continue to take a 

comprehensive approach to its historic 

resources, looking Agencywide at how it can 

best use its limited funds to preserve the most 

significant historic resources.

Figure 5-13. Screenshot of NASA CRM website with the APA subpage shown.21

21 NASA, Cultural Resources Management, https://www.nasa.gov/emd/crm/nasa_apa.