Search

SHPO Correspondence regarding the Industrial Area History District Survey.

HAER documentation of Launch Complex 9/10 located on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. This record contains written, graphic, and photographic material as required for mitigation when a significant historic resource is altered or demolished. Constructed 1953-1957, Launch Complex 9/10 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station was designed to support the Air Force's Navaho winged intercontinental missile. Although the program was cancelled soon after completion of the complex, test flights continued until November 1958. Launch Pad 10 served as the test site for the Navaho, the Jason research rocket, and the Alpha Draco missile.

HAER documentation of Launch Complex 3/4 located on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. This record contains written, graphic, and photographic material as required for mitigation when a significant historic resource is altered or demolished. With over 125 missile launches between 1950 and 1960, Launch Complex 3/4 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station played a vital role in the larger missile research and development program that provided the United States with an operational, conventional, and nuclear missile force for K195 defense in the arms race.

Maps and plans for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) repair in Scott Air Force Base, Building 50.

Archaeological and historical studies were undertaken by Desert Archaeology, Inc., selected and procured via a professional services procurement process approved by the FAA, to address legal compliance of the City of Phoenix Community Noise Reduction Program (CNRP) with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The purpose of the CNRP is to offer noise mitigation services to residential neighborhoods most severely impacted by noise from Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The archaeological work, with accompanying archival research, involved monitoring, testing, and data recovery efforts variously conducted at 220 residential parcels within neighborhoods located north and west of Sky Harbor Airport. All parcels had been purchased by the City of Phoenix through the CNRP Voluntary Acquisition and Relocation Services (VARS) program and faced demolition and removal of all above-and below-ground structures, including utilities, within each parcel. These demolitions had the potential to adversely affect archaeological resources at investigated parcels. All archaeological work for the CNRP-VARS program was conducted in compliance with the Arizona Antiquities Act of 1960. The neighborhoods, with assigned site numbers, include: North Neighborhood, AZ T:12:258 (ASM); Eastlake Park Neighborhood, AZ T:12:259 (ASM); El Campito Barrio, AZ T:12:260 (ASM); Cuatro Milpas Barrio, AZ T:12:261 (ASM); Ann Ott Barrio, AZ T:12:262 (ASM); Green Valley Barrio, AZ T:12:263 (ASM); and Rio Salado San Juan Bautista Barrio, AZ T:12:264 (ASM). The names were established as each neighborhood was annexed by the City, and mirror names used historically by the residents of the neighborhood. The term barrio, the Spanish word for neighborhood, reflects those neighborhoods populated primarily by residents of Hispanic descent at the time of city annexation. Site numbers were assigned per ASM protocols for archaeological investigations.

The San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District (SCIDD) is undertaking a 10-year rehabilitation project (project) of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligible Florence-Casa Grande (FCG) Canal (also known as the Main Canal/ AZ AA:3:215[ASM]) in Pinal County, Arizona. The canal, which is currently operated and maintained by SCIDD, was constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) between 1923 and 1928 and incorporated into the San Carlos Irrigation Project (SCIP) - a comprehensive irrigation project designed to provide water to both private individuals and the Gila River Indian Community which was previously determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. To improve the overall safety and efficiency of the FCG Canal, the anticipated work involves decommissioning the existing China Wash Flume - a contributing structure of the SCIP irrigation system. Reclamation, as lead federal agency, is overseeing the SCIDD rehabilitation project compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which requires all historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE) to be identified and mitigated. The flume structure was built in 1925 and consists of four semi-circular, reinforced concrete flume barrels. China Wash Flume's design is unique and represents a departure from the standard designs used by the BIA. In order to mitigate potential adverse effects from the proposed decommissioning of the flume, Reclamation contracted with North Wind Resource Consulting to conduct archival research and prepare Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation of the flume.

The 45th Space Wing conducted a historical survey and evaluation of seventy-six United States Air Force (USAF) owned weather monitoring stations in Brevard, Indian River, Martin and Volusia Counties. The USAF determined that the resources did not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register. Based on the information provided, the SHPO concurred that the seventy-six resources do not appear to meet the criteria to be considered eligible for listing on the National Register.

url: http://sutod.selcuk.edu.tr/sutod/article/view/346, Kültürel mirasın belgelenmesinde ve restorasyon uygulamalarında geometrik veriler elde eden lazer tarama teknolojisinin kullanılması ile geleneksel yöntemlere göre hızlı, kolay ve hassas ölçümler yapılabilmektedir. Tarihi yapı ile ilgili verilerin doğruluğu tüm koruma ve karar verme sürecini doğrudan etkilemektedir. Lazer tarama verilerinin işlenmesi ile farklı amaçlı 3D modeller üretilebilmekte, çalışmalar internet üzerinden paylaşılabilmektedir. Bunlarla beraber yapı ile ilgili detaylı biçimsel analizler yapılabilmekte ve ilgili birçok mühendislik alanına veri transferi sağlanabilmektedir. Bu avantajlarına rağmen teknolojinin henüz genel mimari proje üretiminde yaygın kullanılamadığı söylenebilir. Kullanılan aletlerin ve veri işleme yazılımlarının pahalı olması yaygın kullanımın önündeki en önemli engel olarak görülmektedir. Bunun yanında konunun mimarlık disiplininin eğitimi içerisine yeterince girememesi ve bu alanda çalışan araştırmacı sayısının az olması mimarlık alanında kullanımını sınırlandırmaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında, mimari kültür mirası yönü ile zengin olan Türkiye’deki son on yılda çok sayıda koruma projesi üretimi göz önüne alınarak, bu projelerdeki lazer tarama teknolojisinin kullanım olanaklarına değinilmiştir. Bu kapsamda; Aksaray ilinde sivil mimarlık örneği bir konutun belgeleme çalışması ile teknolojinin olumlu ve olumsuz yönleri araştırılmış, Türkiye genelinde lazer tarama teknolojilerinin kullanım olanaklarına yönelik değerlendirmeler yapılmıştır. Çalışmada teknolojiye erişim, veri kalitesi, arazi çalışması ve ofis çalışmalarında karşılaşılan problemlerle, süre, sonuç ürün ve hassasiyet bakımından elde edilen avantajlar, yersel lazer tarama tekniği üzerinden değerlendirilmiştir., Detailed and accurate measurements can be done by using laser scanning technology compared to conventional methods in documentation of cultural heritage. Accuracy of measured data directly affects the protection of historical buildings and decision-making process. By processing laser scanning data, multipurpose 3d models could be obtained and all work and results could be shared via internet. Moreover, a detailed analysis of the building can be made with this data and it can be transferred to all related engineering and archeological fields. Despite the advantages of this technology, it has not been used widely yet in production of architectural projects. High cost of equipment and data processing software have been seen as main obstacles for widespread using of this technology. As well as, lack of integration of this topic into architectural education and less number of researcher studying in this field restrict the use of laser scanner. In this paper, evaluations were made in order to define the possibilities by using laser scanner technologies in process of restoration projects of which number is getting increased in last decades in Turkey. Positive and negative aspects of technology observed in survey process were given with a case study, a traditional and historical house in province of Aksaray and some reviews related to potential use of laser scanner technologies were made in Turkey. In this study faced problems in terms of technology access, data quality, field study and office study and advantages in time, final result and precision are evaluated through case study.

This report summarizes the survey and documentation of World War II forts at Eareckson Air Station. Research methods used prior to fieldwork included an examination of aerial photographs, maps, and literature. Fieldwork was conducted under the direction of Northern Land Use Research Alaska (NLURA), LLC staff meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A) for history and archaeology. Sites were located by vehicle and pedestrian survey using GPS location data from OHA records. The survey crew kept written field notes, made sketch maps and feature drawings, and all existing structural remains and associated features were measured, photographed, and documented. Feature location coordinates were recorded with a Garmin GPS Map 76Cx GPS unit. Localized geography and topography, important for understanding the defensive fortification system, was also noted. NLURA supports the continued eligibility of all features as contributing properties to the Shemya Island World War II Historic District (ATU-00063).

The purpose of this report is to record modifications to Facility 607, the Von Karman Facility (VKF) Intermittent Test Building, and Tunnel D, pursuant to the programmatic agreement for management of historic properties at Arnold Air Force Base (Programmatic Agreement; United States Air Force, 2014). This project consists of renovations to this mothballed facility to prepare it for bringing Tunnel D back on-line for new testing projects. These renovations will be to the interior and exterior of the existing building to prepare it for renewed testing operations after the facility has been dormant for approximately 38 years.

This report presents Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Level II documentation of Launch Complexes 1/2, 3/4, 9/10, 14, and 34, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida. These facilities have played an important role in the American missile and manned space programs ,that began largely as a result of the Cold War. As the “arms race” expanded in the 1950s and 1960s, missile systems with increasing range and destructive power were deployed on both American and foreign soil. To bring these systems to operational readiness, long and complicated testing programs were necessary and required specialized facilities to support them. A national effort to put men on the surface of the moon also required specialized facilities at Cape Canaveral. These five complexes were constructed in the 1950s and early 1960s, with Launch Complexes 1/2, 3/4, and 9/10 used exclusively for rocket and missile testing, and Launch Complexes 14 and 34 also used for manned spaceflight. Launch Complexes 14 and 34 are part of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station National Historic Landmark District established in 1984.

This brochure resulted from a project that reviewed a historic context subtheme regarding how military helicopter use during the Vietnam War influenced construction on U.S. military installations during this time period.

Working in collaboration with the 4sth Space Wing of the United States Air Force, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), this digital survey and documentation was undertaken to provide continuing baseline terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) survey, monitoring, and spatial recordation for selected historic launch complexes. Targeted structures were chosen for ongoing assessment and 3D laser scan survey, and these data were brought together with aerial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications in a digital platform for landscape and structure consideration. The project was performed in combination with Global Positioning Systems (GPS), videography, and imaging documentation, with the 3D terrestrial laser scanning providing the referent data for the derived 3D Computer Assisted Drawing (CAD) products and archival as-is conditional reference. Previously, six historic launch complexes, two building complexes, and associated structures and features were documented using the survey methods presented here. In this present survey, two additional launch complexes and all associated buildings and features were similarly recorded from the initial survey project.

SHPO and Seminole Tribe of Florida correspondence regarding Hurricane Matthew Damage to Historic Properties on CCAFS.

The 45th Space Wing conducted a historical survey and evaluation of fourteen United States Air Force (USAF) Camera Sites on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Brevard County. The USAF determined that the resources did not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register. Based on the information provided, this the SHPO concurred that the fourteen resources do not appear to meet the criteria to be considered eligible for listing on the National Register.

The San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District (SCIDD) is undertaking a 10-year rehabilitation project of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible Florence-Casa Grande (FCG) Canal (also known as the Main Canal/AZ AA:3:215[ASM]) in Pinal County, Arizona. The canal, which is currently operated and maintained by SCIDD, was constructed by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) between 1923 and 1928 and incorporated into the San Carlos Irrigation Project (SCIP)—a comprehensive irrigation project designed to provide water to both private individuals and the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC). To improve the overall safety and efficiency of the FCG Canal, the anticipated work involves decommissioning the existing China Wash Flume—a contributing structure of the SCIP irrigation system. Reclamation contracted with North Wind Resource Consulting (North Wind) to conduct archival research and prepare HAER documentation and interpretive materials for the China Wash Flume to serve as mitigation for future improvement activities that could have an “adverse effect” on the NRHP-eligible property. The current document serves to provide the results of the archival research and field documentation.

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) has proposed to demolish Building 32448 (formerly 62-160) Munitions Maintenance Operations facility, an individual Quonset hut that was constructed in 1942. As the proposed project is an undertaking on federal lands with federal funds, a cultural resource survey of the project's Area of Potential Effect (APE) and a determination of the building's National Register of Historical Places (NRHP) eligibility were required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 USC§ 470 as amended). Determination of eligibility of Building 32448.

This report describes the historic context subtheme regarding how military helicopter use during the Vietnam War influenced construction on U.S. military installations during this time period. The report provides context and typology of Vietnam War (1962-1975) helicopter resources on DoD installations in the United States, offering a standardized approach to identifying property types, determining historical significance of properties, and assessing integrity.

HAER documentation of Launch Complex 1 & 2 located on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida. This record contains written, graphic, and photographic material as required for mitigation when a significant historic resource is altered or demolished. Constructed between 1951 and 1953, Launch Complex 1/2 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station played a significant role in the larger missile research and development program that provided the United States with an operational, conventional, and nuclear missile force for defense in the arms race.

This document develops a programmatic approach for the consistent management of DoD Cold War-era resources by analyzing the existing Cold War documentation to reduce the need for case-by-case Section 106 compliance. The document includes management categories of Cold War-related properties, recommendations for a variety of management approaches specific to each category, and next steps for developing approaches.

This report inventoried 85 buildings and structures constructed from 1951–1968 at the Industrial Area, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida, that were not previously documented by the installation.

This report provides an inventory and analysis of structures built or in use at Fort Richardson during the Cold War (1946–1991). It finds that the structures remaining from Cold War-era Fort Richardson, although they played some role in the defense of America, are nonetheless standard base operations structures of the type found on military bases throughout the United States and that they do not have a specific and historically important association with Cold War-era Alaska; thus, they are not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Launch Complex 16 (LC-16) has never been adequately assessed to determine if the complex and the individual facilities within are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Cultural Resources manager (CRM) of the Civil Engineering Squadron/Installation Management and Environmental Element (CES/CEIE), 45th Space Wing (45 SW) conducted a historic properties survey in October and November 2014 to determine if the complex and its individual buildings and structures were eligible for listing in the NRHP. Launch Complex 16 (LC-16) (8BR2321) has a long history of use for several launch programs. First it was used for the Titan I and II ICBM programs. It then was used as the location of a trailer to suit up Gemini astronauts who launched from the adjacent LC-19. NASA also used LC-16 as the site to test the Apollo SM engines. None of the programs lasted more than 2 to 3 years. The longest use of LC-16 was as the testing and training site for Pershing IA and II IRBMs (1974 to 1988). Launch Complex 16 is eligible under Criterion A for its association with the Gemini and Apollo manned launch programs as well as the Titan I and II ICBM and Pershing IRBM programs associated with our nation’s defense during the Cold War. It was also used for testing Apollo SM engines. Under Criterion B the complex is associated with the original Mercury 7 and Gemini astronauts of which, several went to the moon aboard Apollo. However, the association was rather short-lived. Launch Complex 16 does meet the requirements for Criterion C. under Engineering and Architecture. It is also eligible for its potential to yield any valuable information as cited in Criterion D.

Launch Complex 20 (LC-20) has never been adequately assessed to determine if the complex and the individual facilities within are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Cultural Resources manager (CRM) of the Civil Engineering Squadron/Installation Management and Environmental Element (CES/CEIE), 45th Space Wing (45 SW) conducted a historic properties survey in October and November 2014 to determine if the complex and its individual buildings and structures were eligible for listing in the NRHP.

The Nike Hercules Missile Battery Site Summit, Anchorage, Alaska, recording project was performed under contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson under the direction of the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The historical reports and photographs were prepared by Jacobs Engineering Group. Robert Lane served as historian and Katherine Martin served as architect. This document includes the Phase II historic American land survey report.

In July of 2011, Westover Air Reserve Base (ARB) submitted to The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) a Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for the base's historic resources (i.e. buildings, structures, and landscape features over 50 years of age). This DOE revised a previous survey of the base conducted in 1995. In the revised DOE, Westover ARB concluded that the base did not constitute a historic district as previously determined by the 1995 report, and that any further district potential had been diminished due to a series of demolitions, new construction, and adverse treatments. A significant number of contributing resources (20 of 39) had been demolished since the 1995 report. The infiltration of many new buildings and features to the base eclipsed many of the remaining historic resources. And finally, the cumulative effects of adverse treatments over the past 17 years had dramatically diminished historic integrity. The SHPO responded with a request for additional information prior to concurrence with the Base's findings. This report is an addendum to the July 2011 evaluation and contains the additional information requested by the MHC in their letter of July 15, 2011. The original application can be found here https://core.tdar.org/document/438108

This project was undertaken to provide baseline terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) survey and spatial recordation for six historic launch complexes. Select structures were chosen for 3D laser scan survey, and these data were brought together with aerial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS applications in a digital platform for landscape and structure consideration. The project was performed in combination with Global Positioning Systems (GPS), videography, and imaging documentation, with the 3D terrestrial laser scanning providing the referent data for the derived 3D Computer Assisted Drawing (CAD) products and archival as-is conditional reference. THis report presents the methodology and results of the project.

The Alaska Radar System (ARS), which currently consists of 15 active Long Range Radar Sites (LRRS) throughout Alaska, is an essential component of North America’s air defense. It provides air space surveillance, early warning against attack, intercept control, and navigational assistance to both military and civilian aircraft. It is administered by the Eleventh Air Force, through the 611th Air Support Group (611 ASG) headquartered at Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson (JBER) in Anchorage, Alaska. The following document is a Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation (HBIE) of late Cold War properties within the ARS equipped with Minimally Attended Radar (MAR) and Unattended Radar (UAR). None of the sites were considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) individually or as a district.

This report presents the methods and documentation pertaining to the finding of no adverse effect for the repair and refurbishment of Hangar AP (8BR2454).

SHPO Correspondence regarding the final site plan for the development of the Cape Canaveral Lighthouse (8BR212) and the New Lighthouse (8BR1160).

This report presents the methods and documentation pertaining to the finding of no adverse effect for repair and replacement of the roof on Facility 54935: Paint Storage Building-Hangar T on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida.

A review of the World War II hangars and associated heating facilities at Eareckson Air Station, Alaska on Shemya Island. The report presents the hangar and heating facility descriptions, photographs, architectural drawings, and historical context to satisfy the stipulations of the Memorandum of Agreement between the United States Air Force 611th Air Support Group Alaska and the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer regarding the demolition of World War II-era birchwood hangars and heating plants at Eareckson Air Station, Shemya Island, Alaska.

The document is a visual guide to steel and corrugated wire windows and glass block, providing construction methods and contexts of popular use. The guide is intended to assist in the research, interpretation, and possible future mitigation.

SHPO Correspondence regarding the potential adverse effects to the Spin Test Facility.

This report presents the methods and documentation pertaining to the finding of no adverse effect for the painting of four industrial area facilities located on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

New South Associates, Inc., conducted background research and a historic architectural survey of 12 buildings owned by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that have reached the age of 50 years or more and are located on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). The survey was to determine if a historic district existed in the CCAFS Industrial Area. The nine properties within the eligible Hangar AF Complex Historic District were also evaluated to determine if those facilities should be incorporated into a potential historic district. These facilities were evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a historic district, an individually eligible property, or as a contributing resource to the district. The survey resulted in the recommendation that the facilities do form a historic district with a discontiguous boundary, and that two of the buildings – Hangar S and Missile Assembly Building AE (also known as Hangar AE) – are individually eligible to the NRHP and contribute to the newly-identified historic district, “NASA-owned CCAFS Industrial Area Historic District.” Hangar AE was previously determined individually eligible under the 45-50 Year Historic Survey performed by New South Associates in 2012, which received concurrence by the Florida State Historic Preservation Office in November 2013. Thirty support facilities were also surveyed and determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

The Launch Complex 5/6 Spin Test Facility was never assessed to determine if the complex and/or the facilities within were eligible for listing 1n the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Civil Engineering Squadron/Infrastructure and Environmental Division (CES/CEIE), 45th Space Wing (45 SW) conducted a survey from September to December 2013 to determine if the complex and its individual buildings and structures were eligible for listing in the NRHP. Applying the Cold War assessment tool (Lewis, et al. 1995), LC-5/6 Spin Test Facility (8BR3052) has a direct Cold War relationship to CCAFS and to the nation’s manned unmanned and manned missile programs (c.f. Mercury, Redstone, Jupiter, etc.) as well as the development of SLBMs. Furthermore, it was never assessed in the 1980s when CCAFS was surveyed for the Man in Space NHL District (8BR216). It is unclear why since it is directly linked to both LC-5/6 and 26. It should be included in that district. Using the themes in the Man in Space National Historic Landmark Theme Study (Butowsky 1984) the complex is NRHP and NHL eligible for its association with technical foundations before 1958, for its association with the effort to land a men the Moon, exploration of planets and the solar system, and its role for the development and launch of scientific and communications satellites.

New South Associates, Inc., conducted background research and a historic architectural survey of 12 buildings owned by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that have reached the age of 50 years or more and are located on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). The survey was to determine if a historic district existed in the CCAFS Industrial Area. The nine properties within the eligible Hangar AF Complex Historic District were also evaluated to determine if those facilities should be incorporated into a potential historic district. These facilities were evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a historic district, an individually eligible property, or as a contributing resource to the district. The survey resulted in the recommendation that the facilities do form a historic district with a discontiguous boundary, and that two of the buildings– Hangar S and Missile Assembly Building AE (also known as Hangar AE) – are individually eligible to the NRHP and contribute to the newly-identified historic district, “NASA-owned CCAFS Industrial Area Historic District.” Hangar AE was previously determined individually eligible under the 45-50 Year Historic Survey performed by New South Associates in 2012, which received concurrence by the Florida State Historic Preservation Office in November 2013. Thirty support facilities were also surveyed and determined not eligible for listing on the NRHP.

This document discusses suitable substitutes for 20th-century window types identified as character-defining features of historic 20th-century DoD buildings. This tool will assist DoD CRMs, facility planners, architects, and engineers responsible for the maintenance and repair of historic 20th-century buildings in complying with Section 106 of the NHPA.

Inventory and evaluation of 563 Cold War era resources including review of the 2005 and 2008 historic facility results and recommendations. Results of this project include recommendation of 86 historic facilities as eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and a proposed Arnold Air Force Base Test Facilities Historic District. This district is to be made up of three components; the Arnold Engineering and Development Complex, the Elk River Dam and Woods Reservoir Historic Landscape and the Test Utilities Historic Landscape. This report is divided into three volumes. Volume I is intended as a desk reference and includes the project summary (Section 1.0), an environmental context (Section 2.0), a historic context (Section 3.0), methodology (Section 3.0), previous surveys (Section 4.0), a summary of the resources and National Register of Historic Places assessments (Section 5.0), recommendations and conclusions (Section 6.0), and references (Section 7.0). Volume II is comprised completely of the building descriptions, National Register of Historic Places recommendations, mapping, and relevant photographs. Volume III is the appendices and includes the Tennessee Historical Commission architectural forms and extra photographs.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory (MITLL) proposes to demolish 10 buildings within the Katahdin Hill Area that contribute to the significance of the AFCRL Historic District (Nos. 1122, 1124, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, and 1142) for a proposed facilities replacement. One additional non-contributing building (No. 1123) within the Katahdin Hill Area will also be demolished. In compliance with Section 106, MIT LL and the USAF have consulted with the Massachusetts SHPO/MHC regarding the undertaking’s potential effects and, through further consultation, have entered into a Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the MASHPO for the resolution of adverse effects to these properties. The MOA includes a stipulation that the USAF will prepare archival historical documentation for the AFCRL Katahdin Hill area and nine contributing buildings (Nos. 1122, 1124, 1126, 1128, 1138, 1139, 1140, 1141, and 1142) prior to demolition. This report also includes photograph reference sheets, Section 106 Agreement, and Massachusetts Historical Commission Area Forms.

Letter to the ACHP regarding the demolition of Hangar M Annex.

The 45th Space Wing (45 SW) of the United States Air Force (USAF) proposed to demolish Facility 4120-Transformer Building (8BR2252) at Launch Complex 1/2. The Florida SHPO concurred that the undertaking would be an adverse effect and requested a case study be prepared to demonstrate that all possible alternatives were addressed prior to the decision to demolish the properties. This case study has been prepared per the request of the Florida SHPO.

Updated Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Historic Properties Inventory for 2014.

SpaceX, under a lease agreement with the USAF proposed to conduct vertical landings of the Falcon first stage vehicle at LC-13 at CCAFS. This included land clearing, and construction of a main landing pad at LC-13, contingency pads, and supporting infrastructure modifications to the existing facility. There were six cultural resources located within or adjacent to the project area; however, non were found eligible for listing in the NRHP either individually or as part of a district.

Tez (Yüksek Lisans) -- İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 2014, Thesis (M.Sc.) -- İstanbul Technical University, Institute of Science and Technology, 2014, İstanbul ili, Beyoğlu ilçesinde bulunan Metro Han ve Cer Binası, tez çalışmasının kapsamını belirleyen yapılardır. Metro Han ve Cer Binası, Galata Kulesi’nden sonra, Galata bölgesi silüetinde farkedilen en önemli yapılardandır. Metro Han İETT Genel Müdürlüğü, Cer Binası ise Tünel Hattı’nın teknik yapısı olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu iki yapının, içinde bulundukları çevre ve parçası oldukları Tünel Hattı ile birlikte belgelenmesi çalışmanın ilk adımını teşkil eder. Bu belgeleme işlemleri, “Tünel Beyoğlu İstasyonu” ve “Makine Dairesi” ile birlikte, Cer Binası ve Metro Han’ın tüm hacimlerini kapsar. Yapılan ölçüm ve belgeleme çalışmaları ile eş zamanlı olarak, yapıların tarihlerine dair araştırmalar yapılmıştır. Yapıların bügünü ve geçmişine ait bilgilerin toplanıp değerlendirilmesi sonrasında, yarını ile ilgili önerileri içeren restorasyon projesi hazırlanarak, kabul görmüş koruma ilkeleri ışığında, yapıların korunma sorunsalı irdelenmiştir. Metro Han ve Cer Binası, Galata surlarının kuzeyini ifade eden Pera bölgesinde bulunur. İlk çağlardan beri önemli bir yerleşim bölgesi olan Galata’nın kuzey kırları, bilhassa Osmanlıların İstanbul’u fethinden sonra gelişmiştir. Osmanlı egemenliği altında kozmopolit bir liman şehri olarak varlığını devam ettiren bölge, bir Avrupa kenti görünümündeydi. 17.yy’dan itibaren elçiliklerin Pera bağlarına yerleşmesine izin verilmişti. Tanzimat Fermanı sonrasında Pera bölgesindeki Avrupa havası kuvvetlenmiş ve bu bölgede batılı anlamda yoğun imar hareketleri görülmüştü. Metro Han ve Cer Binası, bu yapılaşma hareketlerinin ve Galata ile Pera arasındaki Avrupa’dan ithal modern iletişimin bir yansıması olarak bölgede yer etmiş mimari unsurlardır. 1838 yılının sıkı sokak ağı, bölgenin eğim çizgilerini takip eden denize paralel sokaklardan oluşmuştu. Galata ve Pera arasındaki dik bağlantıyı sağlayan geçitler vardı. Dik bağlantığı sağlayan en önemli güzergah ise Yüksek Kaldırım’dı. E.H. Gavand adlı Fransız mühendis 1867 yılında İstanbul’a gelmiş ve bu gezisi sırasında, Galata ile Beyoğlu arasında Yüksek Kaldırım üzerinde çok sayıda insanın gidip geldiğini gözlemlemiştir. %24 eğime sahip Yüksek Kaldırım Caddesi üzerinden günde ortalama 40.000 kişinin gidip geldiğini tespit etmiştir. Galata ve Pera bölgeleri arasındaki yoğun inşan akışına karşın yetersiz ulaşım imkanları, Fransız mühendisin bu iki bölge arasında ulaşımı kolaylaştırma amaçlı asansör tipinde yeraltı demiryolu projesi hazırlamasına neden olmuştur. Fikrini geliştiren Gavand, 1868 yılında Sadrazam Ali Paşa’ya proje taslağını sunmuş. Sermaye temini içinde İngiltere’de temaslar kurmuş ve “The Metropolitain Railway of Constantinople from Galata to Pera” ismiyle şirketini kurmuştu. 1874 yılı sonunda büyük oranda tamamlanan Tünel Hattı, 1875 yılı başında yapılan açılış töreni ile hizmete girmiştir. İşletme Beyoğlu Tünel İstasyonu ve teknik hacmi içeren Cer Binası ile faaliyet göstermiştir. Açılış sonrası beklenenden fazla talep gören işletmenin kar oranları, imtiyaz sahibi şirketin 1892 yılında Osmanlı hükümetine başvuruda bulunarak imtiyazın uzatılmasını talep etmesine neden olmuştu. Bunun neticesinde, 1904 tarihinde bir mukavele daha yapılarak imtiyaz süresi 75 sene daha uzatılmıştı. 1908 tarihinde İngiliz şirket Tünel’i Tramvay şirketine devretti. Bu devir işlemi ile birlikte Tünel ve Tramvay, aynı idarenin bünyesinde hizmet vermeye devam etti. 1911 yılında ise Belçika uyruklu SOFINA şirketi tarafından tüm işletmler satın alınmıştır. Elektrik, Tünel ve Tramvay imtiyazlarına sahip olan SOFINA şirketi de, idari merkez ihtiyacı gidermek üzere Metro Han’ı inşa etmişti. Yapının inşası 15 Kasım 1912 ve 12 Mart 1913 tarihli projelerde görülen revizyonlar neticesinde 1914 yılında tamamlanmış ve yapı kullanıma açılmıştı. 1928 yılında ise altı katlı olarak inşa edilen yapının üzerine yedinci kat eklenmiştir. Birinci Dünya Savaşı ve Milli Mücadele dönemlerinin ardından Cumhuriyet yıllarında da İstanbul’da faaliyetine devam eden Elektrik, Tramvay ve Tünel İşletmeleri, 1939 yılında millileştirilmiştir. “İstanbul Elektrik, Tramvay ve Tünel İşletmeleri (İ.E.T.T.)” adı altında İstanbul Belediyesi bünyesinde kurulan şirket, Metro Han’ı Genel Müdürlük binası olarak kullanmaya devam eder. Metro Han’ın kuzey yönünde karşısında bulunan Cer Binası, bitişik nizamlı yapı adasında köşe parsel olması nedeni ile iki cepheye sahiptir. Tünel Meydanı Sokak’a bakan güney cephesinde yapıya girişler bulunur. Bodrum kat, zemin kat, iki normal kat ve çatı katından oluşan yapının 30 metreyi aşan bir bacası bulunmaktadır. Cer Binası 12,5 m x 4,5 m boyutlarındaki dikdörtgen kütleye eklenmiş 3,5 m x 3,5 m kare kaideli bacası bulunan bir yapıdır. Cer Binası’nın cephelerinde dolu tuğla malzeme vurgulanmıştır. Tuğla boyutları 24 x 12 cm olup kalınlığı da ortalama 6 cm’dir. Cephelerdeki tuğla örgü vurgulu görünüm, yüksekliği 30 metreyi bulan tuğla bacası ile birlikte Cer Binası’nın Endüstri Mirası özelliğini dışa vuran en önemli öğelerdir. Taş temel üzerine, taş ve tuğla taşıyıcı duvarlar ile yükselen yapının döşeme sistemi de voltadır. Metro Han’ın plan şeması, zemin kat hariç tüm katlarında benzeşir. Orta kısımda bulunan ışıklık hacimleri etrafında ana koridor dolaşır. Dış mekana bakan penceresi bulunan odalarda bu ana koridor boyunca dizilirler. Metro Han’ın cephelerinde bulunan çıkmalar, ikinci, üçüncü, dördüncü ve beşinci katlarda devam ederek altıncı katta sonlanır. Altıncı katta çıkma üzeri balkon olur. Sadeleştirilmiş neo-klasik süslemeli cephesi ve cumba benzeri kütle hareketleri ile eklektik bir görünüm hakimdir. Pilastır sütün başlık süslemesi ile kat bitişlerindeki korniş, dor düzenini andırır. İETT Arşivi’nde bulunan statik projelere göre yapı çelik düşey ve yatay taşıyıcılardan oluşan iskelet sisteme sahiptir. Çelik karkas, her kat hizasında dört köşede bulunan aks aralıklarında çapraz metal kirişler ile desteklenmiştir. 30-35 cm kalınlığında ölçülen döşeme sistemi ise, ana yatay taşıyıcılara yük aktaran “I” putreller ve bu putrellerin arasında beton doldurulması ile oluşturulmuştur. Tüm metal birleşimlerde somun-cıvata ve perçin kullanılmıştır. Metro Han’ın dış duvarları ise bazı yerlerde kalınlığı 30 cm’i bulan taş kaplama ve tuğla ile örülmüştür. Metro Han ve Cer Binası’nın restitüsyon çizimlerinde iki farklı dönem esas alınmıştır: Cer Binası için yapının yapıldığı ve Tünel Hattı’nın faaliyete girdiği 1875 senesi, Metro Han için ise binanın yapımından 14 yıl sonrası, 1928-30 yılları. 1875 yılına dönülürken, yapıya sonradan eklenmiş olan ve eski fotoğraflarda derme çatma olduğu anlaşılan üçüncü kat çıkarılmıştır. Bunun yanı sıra, Cer Binası ile aynı yapı adasında bulunan Tünel Pasajı’nın yapımı ile Cer Binası bodrum katında yeni mekanlar elde etmiştir. Tünel Pasajı’nın bodrum katına doğru uzanan bu mekanlar da restitüsyon çizimlerinde çıkarılmıştır. Metro Han için ise 1928-30 yıllarında eklenmiş olan yedinci kat nitelikli dönem eki olarak kabul edilmiş. Bu tarihten sonra eklenen tüm muhdes eklerden yapı arındırılmıştır. Mevcut durumun çizimleri ve restitüsyon çizimleri karşılaştırılıp restorasyon kararları belirlenmiştir. İlke olarak, izi bulunan özgün detaylar restitüsyon çizimlerine göre tamamlanmış, farklı bir fonksiyon önerilmeden yapının fiziki şartlarını iyileştirmeye yönelik restorasyon kararları belirlenmiştir. Yapıların detaylı incelenmesi sonucu belirlenen koruma problemleri ve önerilen çözümler ile tez çalışması tamamlanmıştır., Located in the Beyoğlu district of Istanbul, Metro Han and Traction Building, form the focus of this thesis. Second to Galata Tower, these two buildings are of significant importance as being one of the structures that can be easily noticed on the skyline of Galata district. Metro Han is currently used as the headquarters of the İstanbul Transportation Authority (İ.E.T.T.) and Traction Buildingis used for technical operations of the Tunnel Line. The documentation of Metro Han and Traction Buildingwithin its neighborhood constitutes the first part of this study. This documentation also includes “Tunnel Engine Room” and “Beyoğlu Tunnel Station,” along with all the measurements of these buildings. History of the two buildings has also been researched within the scope of this thesis. After collecting the necessary information on both the present and past of Metro Han and Traction Building, conservation issues have been discussed in line with the contemporary principles of historic conservation. As an outcome, a restoration project has been created for the two buildings. Metro Han and Traction Building are located in the Pera district, in the north of the Galata City Walls. This region had been a major residential area from the earliest times of the history. But the north of this region developed significantly only after the Ottoman conquest of İstanbul. Under the Ottoman rule, the City of Galata continued its existence as a cosmopolitain port and trade city, resembling a European city. European embassies were allowed to settle in the Pera district by the 17th century. Especially after the Tanzimat era, the European atmosphere existing in the region has been strengthened and Western architecture buildings were started to be intensely constructed. Metro Han and Traction Buildingare among the outcomes of the time’s construction activities. They are also architectural reflections of modern transportation and communication technologies imported to İstanbul from Europe. In 1838, tight street network of the region followed the izohips and appeared parallel to the sea. Limited gateways provided the connection between Galata and Pera. The main gateway between these two regions was the Yüksek Kaldırım Avenue. During his trip to Istanbul in 1867, a French engineer named E. H. Gavand observed that a large number of people come and go through the Yüksek Kaldırım Avenue. Sloped at 24 percent, Yüksek Kaldırım Avenue was a road used by an average of 40,000 pedestrians each day. Inadequate transportation facilities between Galata and Pera despite the intense flow led Gavand to design an underground funicular transportation system between these two regions. Gavand presented this idea to the Grand Vizier Ali Pasha in 1868. Thereafter he went to the UK seeking for the required finance and formed a company named “The Metropolitan Railway of Constantinople from Pera to Galata”. The line was nearly completed by the end of 1874 and commenced operations in the beginning of 1875 after an inaugural ceremony. It, then, consisted of three building facilities; Galata Tunnel Station, Pera Tunnel Station and Traction Building. Profits earned from the line operation were far greater than expected, which led the company to ask for an extension of the operation right it has been enjoying in 1892. As a result, Ottoman Government extended the contract for 75 years in 1904. The British company handed over its rights to the Tram Company in 1908, enabling both the tram and tunnel lines to be operated by the same company. In 1911, a Belgian Company named SOFINA bought this company. Owning all the rights to operate both tram and tunnel lines along with the electricity of the city, SOFINA combined these three businesses and constructed Metro Han to be used as its headquarters. With the projects dated 1912 and 1913, construction of Metro Han was completed in 1914. And in 1928, the company added a seventh floor to the building. In the first years of the Republic of Turkey, SOFINA continued its activities on Electricity, Tramway and Tunnel Enterprises. Only in 1939, these three companies were nationalized and converted to the İ.E.T.T, which was directed by the Istanbul Municipality. İ.E.T.T. has been using Metro Han as its headquarters since 1939. Located across the northern side of Metro Han, Traction Building has two façades as it is positioned on a corner parcel in an attached order city block. It has two entrances on the South façade facing Tünel Square Street. It has a basement, including the engine room of Tunnel Line, a ground floor, used by the officers, and three upper floors remaining vacant. The building also has a 30 meters long chimney. Emphasized brick work on façades and 30 meters long chimney are the most significant components of the building. These two also highlight the importance of the building as an industrial heritage. On a stone substructure, stone and brick bearing walls erect the building. And main flooring system appears as floor arches. Metro Han has a similar plan scheme in all floors except the ground floor. The building has two ceiling light volumes ending with a skylight. In each floor, main corridor circulates around the ceiling light volumes. Rooms with windows facing the exterior are aligned along the main corridor. Façades of Metro Han has either oriel windows and Doric pilaster capitals. Combining neo-classic and neo-ottoman styles, the façades are built in an eclectic style. According to the original drawings that are kept in the İ.E.T.T. Archives, Metro Han, has a steel frame construction. That steel frames are also supported with steel beans located on the corners of the building. The flooring system, measured at 30 cm, is formed with concrete that filled between “I” shaped beams. These “I” shaped beams transfer its loads to the main steel beams and than to the main bearing steel columns. All joints in the structural system has bolt-nut and rivetwork. Metro Han’s outer brick walls’ thickness is about 30 cm and main bearing columns have stone and brick revetment that prevents to observe steel construction. In the restitution drawings of Metro Han and Traction Building, two different time periods are taken as basis: the year of 1875 for Tunnel Line and Cer Binası and the years of 1928-30 for Metro Han. For the Cer Binasi of 1875, the third floor of Traction Building, which was a later addition, was removed from restitution drawings. Three basement rooms, which were originally located under another building and were again later additions to Traction Building, were removed, too. And for Metro Han of 1928-30, all additional rooms that were made in the ceiling light volumes have been removed like all other later additions to the building. The seventh floor of the building, on the other hand, has been considered as a qualified attachment to the building and included in the restitution drawings of Metro Han. After defining current and past conditions of the buildings, restoration approaches have been shaped from the collected information and the problematic of historic conservation of these building has beendiscussed. In principle, traced original details based on restitution drawings are projected in restoration drawings. Restoration project aimed to improve physical conditions, purely and sensitively to the autenticiy and originality of the buildings., Yüksek Lisans, M.Sc.

This report is an assessment of Building 9570 and historic district. Building 9570 is a contributing resource to the Flight Line Historic District, which is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A for its significant role as part of Elmendorf Air Field during World War II (WWII). The 10 contributing buildings that comprise the Flight Line Historic District are examples of the earliest construction at Elmendorf Air Field and the rapid development of Fort Richardson in the early 1940s. Elmendorf Air Field is significant for its association with aviation and the defensive role it played during WWII. Building 9570, constructed in 1941, is eligible for listing in the NRHP as a contributing building to the Flight Line Historic District and for its association with WWII activities on Elmendorf Air Field.

Launch Complex 30 (LC-30) was not adequately assessed to determine if the complex and/or the facilities within were eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Civil Engineering Squadron/Installation Management and Environmental Element (CES/CEIE), 45th Space Wing (45 SW) conducted a survey in April and May 2014 to determine if the complex and its individual buildings and structures were NRHP. Launch Complex 30 (8BR2272) is recommended eligible as a historic district at the national level of significance under Criterion A in the area of military research and development and the Cold War for its association with significant events in the history of the US Army’s Pershing IRBM missile program as well as the US Navy’s MK 48 torpedo and Trident SLBM programs. Launch Complex 30 (8BR2272) is also recommended eligible under Criterion C in the area of architecture and engineering as a unified group of facilities that share distinctive architectural characteristics. It is also eligible under Criterion D for its potential to yield information important in history of the US missile program and the design and construction of launch complexes.

Inventory and evaluation of 563 Cold War era resources including review of the 2005 and 2008 historic facility results and recommendations. Results of this project include recommendation of 86 historic facilities as eligible for listing to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and a proposed Arnold Air Force Base Test Facilities Historic District. This district is to be made up of three components; the Arnold Engineering and Development Complex, the Elk River Dam and Woods Reservoir Historic Landscape and the Test Utilities Historic Landscape. This report is divided into three volumes. Volume I is intended as a desk reference and includes the project summary (Section 1.0), an environmental context (Section 2.0), a historic context (Section 3.0), methodology (Section 3.0), previous surveys (Section 4.0), a summary of the resources and National Register of Historic Places assessments (Section 5.0), recommendations and conclusions (Section 6.0), and references (Section 7.0). Volume II is comprised completely of the building descriptions, National Register of Historic Places recommendations, mapping, and relevant photographs. Volume III is the appendices and includes the Tennessee Historical Commission architectural forms and extra photographs.