The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent federal agency

that promotes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation’s diverse

historic resources and advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation

policy. The ACHP also provides a forum for influencing federal activities, programs, and 

policies that affect historic properties. In addition, the ACHP has a key role in carrying out 

the Preserve America program.

Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, of Sacramento, California, is chairman of the 23-member

ACHP, served by a professional staff in Washington, D.C. For more information about the 

ACHP, contact:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 803

Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-606-8503

Fax: 202-606-8647

Web sites: 

www.achp.gov

www.preserveamerica.gov

WASHINGTON, D.C.

OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING,

ACHP HEADQUARTERS 

ROMANESQUE REVIVAL, 1892

Front cover: Spanish Colonial Revival, 

1930s, Redlands, California, (Wikipedia); 

“The Fur Traders,” Elizabeth Lochrie, 

1938, St. Anthony, Idaho (National Postal 

Museum/Smithsonian Institution); Art 

Deco, 1935, Milton, Pennsylvania (Evan 

Kalish); Colonial Revival, 1938, Lakewood, 

New Jersey (The Lakewood Scoop); retail 

counter, Bronx, New York (USPS)

Back cover: postboxes at Old Post 

Offi ce and Courthouse, Little Rock, 

Arkansas (Carol M. Highsmith, Inc./ 

GSA); cancelled stamp (iStockphoto)

ABOUT THE ACHP
 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 2 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

 3 CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE

 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 8 INTRODUCTION

 13 USPS HISTORIC PROPERTIES

 19 USPS HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

AND DISPOSAL PROGRAMS

 26 USPS COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 106

 28 ISSUES IN THE SECTION 106 

REVIEW OF DISPOSAL OF HISTORIC

POSTAL FACILITIES

 39 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 

USPS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

 47 SOURCES

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 1

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation wishes to extend

its appreciation and thanks to the following individuals and organizations 

for their time and contributions to this report:

USPS REPORT PANEL

Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, ACHP Chairman

Teresa Isabel Leger de Fernandez, Citizen Member 

Stephen T. Ayers, Architect of the Capitol

Beth L. Savage, General Services Administration

Elizabeth Hughes, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

John M. Fowler, Executive Director

Reid J. Nelson, Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs

Caroline D. Hall, Assistant Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs (report author)

Najah Duvall-Gabriel, Historic Preservation Specialist

Kirsten Kulis, Program Analyst, GSA Liaison

Susan Glimcher, Director, Office of Communications, Education, and Outreach

Shayla Shrieves, Senior Writer-Editor

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 2

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

CATEX Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act

CEQ White House Council on Environmental Quality

CLG Certified Local Government

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRP Community Relations Program

eFMS USPS Electronic Facilities Management System 

EO Executive Order

FPO Federal Preservation Officer

FR Federal Register

FSO Facility Service Office

GAO Government Accountability Office

GSA General Services Administration

HPC Historic Preservation Coordinator

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

NCSHPO National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NPS National Park Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRIS National Register Information System

NTHP National Trust for Historic Preservation

OIG USPS Office of Inspector General

PA Programmatic Agreement

Section 106 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Section 110 Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Section 111 Section 111 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SOI Secretary of Interior

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

USC United States Code

USPS United States Postal Service

WPA Works Progress Administration

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 3

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is pleased to present this report 

on compliance by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act for the closure and disposal of its historic postal facilities. The report 

responds to the request by Congress in the explanatory statement of the Consolidated

Appropriations Act of 2014, Division G.

The USPS has disposed of post offices throughout its history. However, the rate of disposals

began to increase in 2008 as declining mail volumes along with increased automation and

worker productivity led to a determination by the USPS that many facilities are larger than

operations require. Given the number of historic properties in the USPS real property

inventory, it is inevitable that historic post offices and facilities would be among the properties

considered for disposal. Section 106 consultations on a number of high profile disposals 

across the country have demonstrated that the preservation community and the public have 

significant concerns about the potential closure of these historic facilities, including the loss of 

public use of the buildings, the risk posed to the integrity of historic buildings and the artwork

they contain, and the potential loss of public access. The limited consideration of the historic

values of these iconic buildings along with the lack of transparency in Section 106 consultation

further exacerbates these problems.

This report makes specific findings and recommendations that would improve USPS 

compliance with Section 106, while building collaborative relationships with communities 

and historic preservation stakeholders. These recommendations are the result of thoughtful 

consideration of information provided to the ACHP by State Historic Preservation Officers,

communities, preservation advocates, the public, and the USPS itself. Awareness of and

appreciation for the value of these important community resources under federal ownership

can foster better management practices that will benefit the USPS, the historic properties, and

the communities in which they reside.

The ACHP stands ready to work with the USPS and historic preservation partners to

implement the recommendations of this report and chart a course for improved Section 106 

compliance and better historic preservation outcomes for communities. compliance and better historic preservation

Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA

Chairman

CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 4
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 5

Many post offices have operated for decades as the civic core of their communities. These 

structures, while often functioning as community meeting places, were constructed with public 

funds and serve as an integral part of the governmental presence in the community, providing

not only a functional role but a symbolic federal presence. Since 2008, the rate of post office 

disposals has increased in response to a determination by the United States Postal Service 

(USPS) that many facilities are larger than current operations require. 

Many of these disposals have targeted historic post offices. Consultations on a number of high 

profile disposals across the country under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) have demonstrated that the preservation community and the public at large have 

significant concerns about the closure of these historic facilities and the potential loss of access 

to these places of such importance to local communities. In response, Congress directed the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to “provide, within 90 days of enactment 

of this Act, a report on how the Council will ensure compliance by the USPS of Section 

106 responsibilities for these historic properties.” (Explanatory Statement, Consolidated

Appropriations Act of 2014, Division G).

Development of this report was informed by the ACHP’s long history of working with

the USPS on Section 106 compliance for a number of USPS undertakings, including

rehabilitation, new construction, the sale of air rights, and demolition. With the increase in 

disposals, the ACHP continues to consult with the USPS encouraging proactive planning and 

the use of programmatic approaches to compliance for the disposal of historic postal facilities. 

In addition, the ACHP visited Oakland, California, to gather information and hear from 

stakeholders who have been directly involved in Section 106 consultations on a number of 

USPS disposals in California. The ACHP also solicited written comments from stakeholders 

and the public on the USPS disposal of historic postal facilities and its compliance with 

Section 106. 

This report provides summary information on the USPS’s historic properties, disposal 

procedures, and Section 106 compliance to date. It also discusses the concerns expressed by

stakeholders regarding these undertakings and the USPS’s conduct of the Section 106 process. 

Finally, this report makes 15 specific findings and conveys related recommendations for 

Congress and the USPS. The report presents actions the ACHP will take, within the scope of 

its authorities, to ensure that the USPS more effectively considers historic preservation values 

in the process of evaluating postal facilities for closure and disposal, and improves historic 

preservation outcomes.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

+ Congress should clarify that the NHPA and its implementing regulations apply to all 

programs of the USPS, in order to remove any doubt that the USPS is legally obligated to 

comply with Sections 106, 110, and 111 of the NHPA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 6

+ The USPS should suspend any further actions to relocate services out of historic postal 

facilities and dispose of these historic facilities until such time as it fully implements the 

recommendations of this report.

+ The USPS should define the undertaking for Section 106 purposes as both the proposal to 

cease/relocate postal services and operations and the subsequent proposal to dispose of the 

historic property.

+ The USPS should initiate Section 106 consultation at the time relocation or cessation 

of services at a historic postal facility is considered, rather than waiting until disposal 

is proposed.

+ The ACHP will work with the USPS, the National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), 

and other stakeholders to develop a model covenant to serve as the basis for all future 

covenants used for historic post office disposal.

+ The USPS must correctly apply all of the Criteria of Adverse Effect found in the Section 

106 regulations (36 CFR § 800.5) to determine when a finding of no adverse effect or 

adverse effect is warranted.

+ The USPS should explore partnerships with Certified Local Governments (CLGs) 

to facilitate the use of local ordinances as mitigation for adverse effects when the 

SHPO concurs.

+ The USPS should evaluate the benefits of utilizing the General Services Administration’s 

(GSA) Office of Real Property Disposal to conduct disposal activities, including Section 

106 compliance.

+ The USPS should consider use of the Historic Surplus Property Program for select 

historic properties where protection of the property is paramount and a state or local 

government is interested in acquiring the property. 

+ The ACHP should continue to work with the USPS, NCSHPO, and other stakeholders 

to identify a program alternative appropriate to the scope and duration of the disposal 

program and work with the parties to develop such an approach.

+ The USPS should expand and reorganize its historic preservation program.

+ The USPS, in cooperation with the ACHP, should work with NCSHPO and other 

stakeholders to develop guidance and training for USPS employees on the process, 

procedures, and special considerations of disposal of historic post offices.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 7

+ The USPS, in cooperation with the ACHP, should work with NCSHPO and other

preservation partners to develop guidance for developers on covenants and historic 

property stewardship.

+ The USPS should evaluate the viability of leasing historic properties, or portions thereof, 

in accordance with Section 111 of NHPA as an alternative to disposal.

+ The USPS should develop language for inclusion in covenants attached to historic 

properties or other legally binding mechanisms that makes an effective commitment for 

the USPS and a binding obligation for the new owner to ensure protection and access to 

murals and other artwork located within historic post offices.

The findings and recommendations in this report offer a range of actions for Congress, the 

USPS, the ACHP, and its partners. These will make significant improvements to the USPS 

planning and compliance for its historic preservation and disposal programs. As the USPS 

continues its efforts to comply with Section 106, the ACHP is committed to assisting the 

USPS in moving forward with these recommendations so that future disposals are better 

informed by sound planning and meaningful consultation with communities and stakeholders.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 8

Few would deny that the local post office is a key component of the civic heart of communities 

across the nation. These structures have served for decades as centers of commerce and 

communication as well as valued community meeting places. They also form an integral part 

of the government presence in the community, providing both a functional role and a symbolic 

federal presence. Understandably, the disposal by the U.S. Postal Service of these public assets 

often raises significant concerns within communities, not just for the loss of postal services but 

also for the preservation of the historic buildings and the artwork they contain, the continuing 

vitality of a facility that generates foot-traffic in downtown areas, and a diminished federal 

government presence as part of the community fabric.

The public has expressed concerns to Congress, the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), and the USPS itself regarding

the effects of disposal of historic postal facilities on the buildings themselves as well as 

surrounding historic districts and the broader local community. Further, the House of 

Representatives and the Senate have discussed legislation to address concerns with regard to 

the decision-making process for the disposal of USPS’s historic facilities.

The proposed disposal of historic postal facilities must first be subject to a historic 

preservation review, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

16 U.S.C § 470f. The ACHP administers the Section 106 process through its implementing

regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). The ACHP has been 

advising the USPS and consulting parties on questions regarding the conduct of the Section 

106 process for proposed disposal undertakings for several years. Recognizing this critical 

role, Congress has tasked the ACHP to prepare this report focusing on how the USPS could 

improve its Section 106 compliance process for disposal of historic post offices.

This report provides background information on the USPS’s historic properties, disposal 

procedures, and Section 106 compliance to date. It also discusses the concerns expressed 

by stakeholders regarding these undertakings and the USPS’s conduct of the Section 106 

process. Finally, the report makes specific findings and conveys related recommendations for 

Congress and the USPS, as well as actions the ACHP will take, to ensure that the USPS 

more effectively considers historic preservation values in the Section 106 process and thereby

improves historic preservation outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The ACHP is an independent federal agency, established by the NHPA in 1966, that 

promotes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of the nation’s diverse historic 

resources. The ACHP’s 23 statutorily designated members address policy issues, direct 

program initiatives, and make recommendations regarding historic preservation to the 

President, the Congress, and heads of other federal agencies. A principal goal of the NHPA 

is to have federal agencies act as responsible stewards of the nation’s historic resources. The 

ACHP seeks to advance this goal through its oversight of the Section 106 process and through 

policy recommendations to improve federal agency implementation of the NHPA’s mandates.

INTRODUCTION
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 9

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014

Responding to the significant public concerns about widespread closure of historic post offices, 

the Congress included language accompanying the ACHP’s FY 2014 appropriation:

“Although the Council has made significant efforts to work with the United States Postal 

Service (USPS) for almost two years to develop a consistent, transparent, and consultative 

process to preserve historic post offices, no comprehensive process has been developed. In 

light of this, the Committees direct the Council to provide, within 90 days of enactment of

this Act, a report on how the Council will ensure compliance by the USPS of Section 106 

responsibilities for these historic properties.” (Explanatory statement of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2014, Division G)

National Historic Preservation Act and Section 106

In the NHPA, Congress established a comprehensive program to preserve the historic and 

cultural foundations of the nation as a living part of community life. Section 106 of the 

NHPA is a crucial part of that program that requires federal agencies to consider the effects 

of their actions on historic properties and to engage in a consultative process to resolve 

negative impacts. 

All federal agencies are subject to the requirements of Section 106, including independent 

regulatory agencies. Complying with Section 106 is a federal agency responsibility and while 

applicants for federal permits or purchasers of federal properties may be asked to carry out 

some of the tasks for completing a Section 106 review, the federal agency remains legally 

responsible for all findings and determinations. 

It should be noted at the outset that there is some uncertainty as to whether the USPS 

believes its Section 106 compliance is legally required or voluntarily assumed. The USPS has 

adopted a resolution establishing that “it is the policy of the Postal Service to abide by the 

general policies and requirements for historic preservation” under Sections 106, 110, and 111 

of the NHPA. (“Policy on Historic Preservation.” Resolution of the Board of Governors of the 

United States Postal Service No. 82-7 [November 9, 1982]). 

The USPS is an “independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the 

United States,” 39 U.S.C. § 201. While such designation clearly fits the NHPA definition of 

an “agency” subject to Section 106 (see 16 U.S.C. § 470w(1)), the Postal Reorganization Act 

(PRA) has exempted the USPS from federal laws “dealing with public or federal contracts, 

property, works, officers, employees, budgets, or funds.” 39 U.S.C. § 410. The ACHP is 

not aware of any court opinions discussing whether the PRA exempts the USPS from the 

requirements of Section 106. However, existing court opinions have found that the PRA does 

not exempt the USPS from complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

an environmental review law that is usually coextensive in its coverage with Section 106. 

See Chelsea Neighborhood Ass’ns v. United States Postal Serv., 516 F.2d 378 (2nd Cir. 1975), and

City of Rochester v. United States Postal Serv., 541 F.2d 967 (2nd Cir. 1976).

Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the effects on historic properties of projects 

they carry out, assist, permit, license, or approve. Federal agencies must also provide the 

ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings before the approval 

of the expenditure of any federal funds on the undertaking or before the issuance of any

license, permit or approval. Agencies comply with Section 106 through the process in the 
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 10

implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). 

The regulations implementing Section 106 can be found on the ACHP’s Web site at 

http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf. A fundamental goal of the Section 106 process is to 

ensure that federal agencies consult with interested parties to identify and evaluate historic 

properties, assess the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and attempt to 

negotiate an outcome that will balance project needs and historic preservation values. 

Section 106 review encourages, but does not mandate, a preservation outcome and recognizes 

that sometimes there is no way for a project to proceed without affecting historic properties. 

Based on the information gathered through the Section 106 process, a federal agency may

make an informed decision to approve, change, or cancel a project. Therefore, the outcome 

of Section 106 reviews can range from avoidance of historic properties to the acceptance of 

extensive adverse effects to historic properties. The Section 106 process ensures that a federal 

agency assumes responsibility for the consequences of its undertakings on historic properties. 

Although the Section 106 regulations specify timeframes for most steps in the review 

process, some steps (like consultation on measures to resolve adverse effects) do not have a 

specified deadline. While the specific time needed to complete the Section 106 review for a

particular project is not predetermined, the federal agency customarily allocates sufficient 

time to complete the review as part of the overall project planning process. Depending on 

the circumstances and the consultation process, a federal agency may conclude its Section 

106 review with a finding of “no historic properties affected” or “no adverse effects to historic 

properties.” If the proposed project may pose adverse effects to historic properties, the agency

must consult to attempt to reach an agreement on how to resolve those adverse effects. Under 

the regulations, consultation means “the process of seeking, discussing, and considering the 

views of other participants, and, where feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding 

matters arising in the Section 106 process.” (36 CFR § 800.16(f )) The Secretary of the 

Interior’s (Secretary) “Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Preservation Programs 

pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act” provides further guidance on consultation. 

The Section 106 regulations identify consulting parties as SHPOs, Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officers (THPOs), federally recognized Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian 

organizations, local governments, applicants for federal assistance or approval, and individuals 

and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking. The agency must also seek

the views of the public, which are essential to informed federal decision making in the Section 

106 process. The federal agency is to carry out its public engagement in a manner that reflects 

the nature and complexity of the undertaking and its effects on historic properties, the likely

interest of the public in the effects on historic properties, confidentiality concerns of private 

individuals and businesses, and the relationship of the federal involvement to the undertaking. 

(36 CFR § 800.2(c))

Consulting parties also participate with the federal agency in the preparation of an agreement 

document, typically a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Programmatic Agreement (PA), 

which establishes the agreed upon measures to resolve the adverse effects of the undertaking

and the roles and responsibilities of the agency and the consulting parties. If the signatories 

cannot come to an agreement, the head of the agency must request, consider, and respond to 

the formal comments of the ACHP members. If an agreement is reached, the agency must 

implement all agreed upon measures set forth in the resulting agreement.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 11

EO 13287: “Preserve America”

Executive Order 13287: “Preserve America,” (EO) addresses the state of the federal 

government’s historic properties and their contribution to local economic development. 

Issued in 2003, the EO reaffirmed the federal government’s responsibility to show leadership 

in preserving America’s heritage by “actively advancing the protection, enhancement, and 

contemporary use of the historic properties owned by the federal government, and by

promoting intergovernmental cooperation and partnerships for the preservation and use of 

historic properties.”

Section 3 of the EO established an accountability system to gauge agency implementation 

of the mandates of NHPA and the EO. It requires the ACHP to prepare a report to the

President every three years on the current state of the federal government’s historic properties 

and their contribution to local economic development. The ACHP’s reports incorporate data 

submitted by real property managing agencies in accordance with Sections 3(a), (b), and (c) 

of the EO. The USPS submitted its baseline report in accordance with Section 3 of the EO 

to the ACHP and the Secretary of the Interior in 2004 and submitted progress reports in 

2005 and 2008. However, the USPS failed to submit a report in 2011 as required.

THE CHALLENGE

Although the USPS has disposed of post offices throughout its history, the rate of disposals 

began to increase in 2008. Declining mail volumes, increased automation of mail sorting, and 

increased worker productivity led to a determination by the USPS that many facilities are 

larger than operations require. Given that, the USPS increased efforts to analyze its properties 

to identify opportunities to optimize its facilities network. This was initially a slow and laborintensive process, requiring site visits and physical measurements of space. Subsequently, the 

USPS developed a computer model that analyzes space needs and optimization opportunities. 

The goals of the USPS, in response to its current financial crisis, are to increase revenue and 

decrease costs. Property disposals are just one of the tools the USPS employs in pursuit of 

those goals through optimization of the USPS’s facilities network, taking into account each

facility’s size, location, costs and revenue, and the operations housed there. 

Given these goals and the USPS inventory of historic properties, it is inevitable that historic 

post offices and facilities would be among the properties considered for disposal. However, 

Section 106 consultations on a number of high profile disposals across the country have

demonstrated that the preservation community and the public have significant concerns about 

the potential closure of these iconic facilities, including the loss of public use of the buildings, 

the risk posed to the historic architecture and art, and the potential loss of public access to 

these places of importance to local communities. In addition, these concerns include not 

just the decision to close the facilities, but the manner in which the USPS is conducting its 

decision-making process, the transparency of that process, and how it conducts the Section 

106 consultation process.

REPORT METHODOLOGY

On behalf of the ACHP membership, a panel of ACHP members oversaw the development 

of this report and its recommendations. The panel included ACHP Chairman Milford Wayne 

Donaldson, FAIA; Teresa Isabel Leger de Fernandez (citizen member); Stephen T. Ayers 

(Architect of the Capitol); Beth L. Savage (representing the Administrator of the General 

Services Administration) and Elizabeth Hughes (President, NCSHPO).
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 12

BERKELEY, 

CALIFORNIA 

RENAISSANCE REVIVAL,

1915

Credit: Wikipedia Commons,

Noah Salzman

Development of this report was informed by the ACHP’s long history of working with 

the USPS on Section 106 compliance for a number of USPS undertakings including 

rehabilitation, new construction, and demolition of postal facilities. Spurred by the increase in 

disposals, the ACHP has been consulting with the USPS since 2012 to encourage proactive 

planning and programmatic approaches to compliance for the disposal of historic postal 

facilities. However, recognizing that the ACHP has been directly involved in consultation 

on only a small number of USPS disposal cases, the ACHP visited Oakland, California, to 

gather information and hear from stakeholders who have been directly involved in Section 

106 consultation on a number of USPS 

disposals in California. The site visit 

enabled the panel members and staff to 

hear from USPS officials, the California

SHPO, the NTHP, local organizations, and

local government officials. The visit offered 

the ACHP the opportunity to learn about 

stakeholders’ experiences in attempting to 

reach agreement on appropriate measures 

to avoid adverse effects to historic facilities 

and opportunities for improving USPS 

compliance with the requirements of

Section 106 for these actions. It also 

afforded the panel members the opportunity

to view firsthand the facility in Berkeley

that is the subject of ongoing disposal

efforts by the USPS.

In addition, the ACHP solicited written 

comments from stakeholders and the

public on the USPS disposal of historic 

postal facilities and its compliance with Section 106. Notice of the opportunity to comment 

to the ACHP was posted on the ACHP Web site; e-mailed to SHPOs, nationwide, state, 

and local preservation organizations; federally recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian 

organizations; as well as distributed to attendees of the Oakland meeting.

This report has been further informed by an online survey developed by NCSHPO at the 

request of the ACHP in August 2013. Twenty-one SHPOs responded to this survey, which

asked eight questions covering SHPO experiences working with USPS in the Section 106 

process for historic post office disposals and the use of covenants in these cases. Further, on 

March 3, 2014, NCSHPO sponsored a discussion among SHPOs, the USPS, and the ACHP 

to review the disposal program to date, to discuss challenges and successes, and to confer on a 

path forward.

In development of the report ACHP staff coordinated with congressional staff, the USPS, 

NCSHPO, the NTHP, the USPS Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the White 

House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The ACHP also consulted with Steve 

Roth, Executive Advisor for Realty Asset Analytics, and former director of Realty Asset and 

Lease Management for the USPS.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 13

The USPS’s inventory of historic properties spans two centuries. The architectural styles 

of the post offices, the fine art they house, and the function the buildings provide in the 

community tell the history of the agency and of rural and urban development in 19th and 

20th century America. This history is important to understanding not just the architectural 

significance of these facilities, but also their value and their significance to the communities 

they have served for decades.

HISTORY

Post offices constitute the most common form of federal government buildings in the 

nation. Located in large cities, small towns, and rural areas, post offices are an important 

presence of the federal government in communities. They play an essential role in facilitating 

communication and promoting economic development, reducing the isolation of rural locales, 

and disseminating products, information, 

and ideas across geographical areas.

Historically, in times of economic stress, the

construction of post offices has stimulated

local economic recovery and provided work.

Many post offices are significant civic

monuments that beautify the cities 

and towns in which they are located.

Architecturally, post offices have served 

as symbols of the federal government’s 

authority, conveyed regional historical 

themes, and exemplified high art forms. 

Some post offices were designed in an 

“official” national style and serve as notable 

examples of classicism in their respective 

communities. During other phases in 

the federal government’s public building 

program, post offices were designed to

reflect regional styles and influences. 

For much of the 19th century and throughout the Depression, artwork, such as ornamental

sculptures and murals, was integrated into the architectural design of post offices.

While many post offices functioned as community meeting places, they are also an integral 

part of the governmental presence in the community, providing not only a functional role 

but a symbolic presence. In some communities, post offices, along with a courthouse, city

hall, or other public buildings, collectively form a civic core that generates pedestrian traffic, 

contributes to the vitality of the downtown area, and provides a sense of community identity

and civic pride. For many of America’s smaller towns the post office remains the only federal 

presence in the community.

USPS HISTORIC PROPERTIES

ANNAPOLIS,

MARYLAND

GEORGIAN REVIVAL,

1901

Credit: Wikipedia Commons
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 14

Historically, governments have maintained control over postal systems, since the effective 

organization and control of society depend upon the ability to communicate. The United 

States government also assumed control over mail service, but incorporated democratic 

principles by constitutionally placing the power to establish post offices and post roads in the 

hands of Congress (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8). The establishment of the postal 

service throughout the country provided an example of democracy at work: citizens petitioned 

Congress, which established post roads and instructed the Postmaster General to provide 

postal service along the routes. (National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 13: How to 

Apply the National Register Criteria to Post Offices. Washington, DC: 1984. Revised 1994.)

The buildings constructed for use as post offices have reflected various government and 

architectural philosophies. From the establishment of the Office of the Supervising Architect 

of the Treasury in the 1850s until the 1890s, the style of federal buildings tended to follow 

the favorite style of the incumbent Supervising Architect. During the tenure of James Knox 

Taylor (1897-1912) as Supervising Architect of the Treasury, the federal government promoted 

the concept that government buildings should be monumental and beautiful, and should 

represent the ideals of democracy and high standards of architectural sophistication in their 

communities. Taylor preferred styles derived from classical or early American traditions. 

Believing that federal buildings should be built to last, he also emphasized the use of high 

quality construction materials. Private architects worked on many of the larger projects, but 

the Office of the Supervising Architect produced smaller buildings, including many of the 

post offices that are found in small towns across the nation. The buildings were individually

designed; Taylor firmly resisted suggestions that designs be standardized. 

After 1913, federal construction policy changed in response to concerns over the cost of public 

buildings projects and controversy over whether all the buildings authorized by Congress were 

truly needed. The 1913 Public Buildings Act, which authorized the construction of a large 

number of public buildings, also prohibited the construction of new post office buildings in 

communities whose postal receipts totaled less than $10,000. In the interest of economy and 

efficiency, the Department of the Treasury instituted a classification system under which a 

post office’s structural and ornamental qualities were functions of the value of real estate and 

postal receipts in the city where it was to be located. First class post offices in large cities 

would still be monumental and elaborate, but for a small town, the standards specified an 

“ordinary class of building, such as any businessman would consider a reasonable investment.” 

In contrast to the earlier policy of designing post offices individually, the Supervising 

Architect’s Office used the same design and 

floor plan whenever possible, and rarely

employed private architects during this

period, which continued through the 1920s. 

The emphasis on economy and efficiency

continued during the Depression, when

the government rapidly expanded its public 

works program as a means of stimulating

economic recovery and providing work for 

the unemployed, almost one third of whom 

were in the building trades. The number of

public buildings constructed in the 1930s 

increased dramatically. Approximately three 

times the number of post offices were built

FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE

 COLONIAL REVIVAL, 1925

 Credit: Heritage Foundation of Franklin and Williamson County
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 15

in this period as had been built in the previous 50 years. The construction of these post offices 

was funded through a number of different programs and authorizations but remained the 

responsibility of the Treasury Department until 1939. 

Nearly a quarter of the post offices built during this period were authorized by the Public 

Works Administration (PWA), established in 1933 to oversee the planning and construction 

of federal and non-federal public works projects. The planning required by the 1926 Public 

Buildings Act and the 1931 Federal Employment Stabilization Act enabled the PWA to begin 

its program with a minimum of delay by starting with federal projects such as post offices. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics maintained statistics on employment, wages, cost of materials, 

and other data on PWA projects. Although the 406 post offices built under this program 

composed only a small portion of the approximately 34,000 PWA construction projects 

completed or in progress in virtually every county in the nation by 1939, they were among the 

most familiar to the general public. Despite the desire to complete projects rapidly, the PWA 

also stressed the importance of high quality in order to ensure “public works of an enduring

character and lasting benefits,” according to its 1939 report.

The government once again employed private architects after 1930, but this practice was ended 

with an order of June 29, 1934, that all remaining federal buildings be designed by the Office 

of the Supervising Architect. The Treasury Department determined that it was not economical 

for private architects to handle small architectural projects. It was felt that the expeditious 

placement of buildings under contract and the putting of men to work in the shortest time 

possible facilitated employment in the construction field, and outweighed the benefits of 

procuring designs from a comparatively small number of architectural firms. A limited number 

of private architects were associated with the Treasury Department’s building program on 

a consulting basis. In March 1939, however, the Treasury Department reversed its policy

and decided to select private architects by means of regional competitions. This new policy

was barely announced when the public buildings program was removed from the Treasury

Department in July of 1939 and merged into the Federal Works Agency (FWA). Although 

some variations to facades were allowed, standardized interior plans were well established by

this time, and outlined in a publication entitled “Instructions to Private Architects Engaged 

CHERAW, SOUTH CAROLINA

 GREEK REVIVAL, 1933

 Credit: Arcadia Preser vation, LLC/Gardiner Hallick
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 16

on Public Building work under the Jurisdictions of the Treasury Department.” The most

commonly used styles were the Colonial Revival style or a simplified classical style blending 

modern and classical elements, characterized by symmetrical massing and plain surfaces. 

Many of the post offices constructed during the 1930s were adorned with murals or other 

forms of artwork commissioned by the federal government. Of the four government programs 

supporting graphic arts during the Depression, the Treasury Department’s Section of Painting 

and Sculpture (later the Section of Fine Arts) was the principal sponsor of art for federal 

buildings, primarily post offices. Funds for artwork were based on 1 percent of the total 

appropriation for the building’s construction. Unlike another major program, the Works 

Progress Administration’s Federal Art Project, the Section’s program was one of patronage 

rather than relief and stressed quality over mass production. Artists were selected through

blind competitions, whose standards encouraged realism as the most appropriate style and 

scenes of everyday American life as suitable subjects. Placement of the commissioned murals and 

sculptures in public buildings resulted from the desire of leaders in the Administration to make 

original, quality art accessible to those who otherwise had little or no opportunity to see it. 

When the public buildings design function was transferred from the Treasury Department 

to the FWA in 1939, its vision was altered as well. In its 1940 annual report, the FWA 

described itself as “primarily an organization for building,” concerned with providing facilities 

for persons engaged in military readiness. By 1943, temporary war-related construction was 

completed, and the Supervising Architect’s staff was reduced by nearly one-half. Construction 

of non-military buildings, especially post offices, was virtually at a standstill. However, the 

FWA planned for a post-war public building program. The agency studied the character of 

building materials, designs, and construction methods used during the war years, and gauged 

the adaptability of the new materials and methods to post-war federal construction. 

After the war, federal architectural activities were well diffused throughout military and 

civilian agencies. The FWA—with its public buildings design function—was subsumed into 

the new General Services Administration with the enactment of the Public Buildings Act 

of 1949. The Office of the Supervising Architect increasingly relied on private architectural 

firms to carry out public building designs. The Office continued, however, to provide standard 

designs and guidelines for post office buildings, although the nature of those buildings changed 

remarkably after World War II. Post offices became prominent examples of the architectural 

tenet “form follows function.” Postmaster General Arthur Summerfield called for utilitarian 

post office designs with no architectural adornment. New post offices had clean lines and 

standardized designs for lobby windows, counters, lock boxes, and letter drops. 

INDEPENDENCE, 

IOWA 

“POSTMAN IN STORM” 

MURAL, ROBERT TABOR,

1938

 Credit: USPS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 17

Another significant difference between 

pre- and post-war post offices was site 

design relative to automobile accessibility. 

After World War II, post offices were

located near major roadways or automobile

traffic intersections, rather than along 

railroads or in town centers. The new

pattern emerged as post-war development 

spread out from central cities. Site plan

concerns included adequate parking,

tail-gate space, rail sidings, and drivethrough service.

With private architects or architectural 

firms designing most post offices after the 

war, GSA encouraged standardized designs

by providing prescriptive drawings and 

specifications and through an ambitious 

lease-purchase program. This program provided for private investors to finance and construct 

public buildings according to federal government requirements. The government would lease 

the buildings for a specified number of years and then, according to a prearranged purchase 

contract, become owner of the building. The architectural treatment of the exterior was left 

to the decision of the building owner and the architect, but interior spaces had to conform 

to accommodate specific postal functions. In 1954, all exclusively post office projects were 

removed from GSA and transferred to the U.S. Post Office Department. GSA was left with

most of the remaining civilian federal buildings, including those that combined post offices 

with other federal functions.

INVENTORY

Section 110 of the NHPA requires each federal agency to establish a program for the 

identification, evaluation, and nomination of properties in their ownership or control to 

the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Despite this requirement, USPS policy

does not support the development of a comprehensive inventory of the historic properties 

in their stewardship. However, USPS policy states that identification and evaluation of 

historic properties is carried out during Section 106 consultation processes for individual 

undertakings. There are no other USPS policies related to the identification and evaluation of 

historic properties, and the agency has not established goals for these purposes.

The USPS reports that it is challenged by its fiscal constraints and its ongoing efforts to 

modernize its procedures to better carry out its core mission, and is therefore presently unable 

to devote the necessary budget to carry out a comprehensive historic property identification 

and evaluation program, or to update the USPS Electronic Facilities Management System

(eFMS) on a regular, full-time basis. The eFMS database is the official U.S. Postal Service 

record for real property inventory, used to manage all property-related projects including 

acquisition, disposal, and repairs. 

Despite these challenges, over the years the USPS has produced a number of historic context 

studies and inventories of its historic properties. Historic contexts are those patterns or trends 

in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and 

ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is made clear. Historic context studies 

develop a “context” within which properties can be evaluated for National Register eligibility. 

HOUSTON, TEXAS

 1951

Credit: USPS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 18

The significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated 

within its historic context.

In 1981, the USPS produced the “History of the U.S. Postal Service, 1775-1980.” Subsequently

in 1982, it developed a historic context on post office construction between 1900 and 1940. 

Most recently in 2012, the USPS contracted for the preparation of a historic context of USPS 

buildings dating from the period between 1940 and 1971. The “History and Context Study

of Postal Facilities Constructed or Occupied Between 1940 and 1971” was designed to guide 

future protection and utilization or sale of USPS properties. 

As part of the most recent historic context study and inventory (completed in 2012), the USPS 

contracted with URS Group, Inc., who surveyed 98 postal facilities throughout the United 

States, representing approximately 7 percent of the 1,461 properties in the eFMS property

database that were built or occupied between 1940 and 1971. The USPS determined that 

comprehensive National Register evaluation materials for post office facilities dating from this 

period were necessary due to the initiation of the “Mail Processing Network Rationalization 

Initiative,” a major step to reduce costs. Development of a nationwide context study would 

further facilitate the evaluation of the NRHP eligibility of these buildings.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 19

At the request of the ACHP, in order to facilitate preparation of this report, the USPS 

provided the background information in this section of its historic preservation and disposal 

program policies and procedures. As discussed above, according to the USPS, its policy, by

a resolution of the Board of Governors, (Resolution No. 82-7, dated November 9, 1982) 

is to abide by the general policies and requirements for historic preservation applicable to 

the federal government, including the NHPA and Executive Orders 11593 (Protection and 

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment), 12072 (Federal Space Management), 13006 

(Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in our Nation’s Central Cities), and 13287 

(Preserve America). 

The USPS has developed standard requirements with respect to how agency personnel 

address historic properties as they carry out their specific responsibilities. The U.S. Postal 

Service Facilities Guide to Real Property Acquisitions and Related Services (Handbook 

RE-1, https://about.usps.com/handbooks/re1.pdf) and the Facilities Environmental 

Guide (Handbook RE-6, www.apwu.org/dept/ind-rel/re6/re6c3.pdf ) are the agency’s 

internal guidebooks that outline USPS policy regarding historic properties. The USPS 

reports that postal employees responsible for historic properties use these guides as tools 

for the management of facilities, including historic properties. The guides provide standard 

USPS HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

AND DISPOSAL PROGRAMS

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS 

OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

Resolution No. 82-7 Policy on Historic Preservation

RESOLVED:

The Postal Service in [sic] one of the largest organizational holders of Real Estate in the United States. 

The Postal Service’s activities in the areas of property acquisition, management, and disposal often 

affect historic properties and historic districts. The Postal Service, as a good neighbor in communities 

throughout the Nation and as an agency of the Federal government should acquire, manage, and dispose 

of its real property with due regard to the impact these activities may have on historic properties and 

historic districts.

In light of the foregoing, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service affirms that 

it is the policy of the Postal Service to abide by the general policies and requirements for historic 

preservation applicable in the Federal government. These are set out in Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966; section 110 and 111 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

Amendments of 1980; and in Federal regulations issued to carry out these provisions of law.

The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Board of Governors on November 9, 1982.

/s/ Louis A. Cox

Secretary
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 20

operating procedures and other information about how USPS employees will carry out their 

responsibilities to ensure compliance with historic preservation laws and regulations. However, 

the handbooks are in many ways inconsistent with the Section 106 regulations, as discussed 

below. In addition, while the RE-1 handbook included an entire chapter dedicated to historic 

preservation at one time (1996 Edition, Chapter 9), the current version of the handbook has 

deleted this chapter. The flowchart from Handbook RE-6 (below) is an example of the types 

of specific cultural resource management guidance that is contained in these documents.

This flowchart is notable for its lack of

clarity and skewed impression with regard 

to the requirements of the Section 106

process. For instance, in the “site evaluation” 

box, there is no mention of properties that 

are eligible for the NRHP. The graphic

only includes properties that are listed on 

the NRHP, but the Section 106 regulations

give equal treatment to properties whether 

listed or eligible for listing (but not formally

listed) on the NRHP. Nor does it afford 

consideration of impacts on NRHP eligible

or listed historic districts, whether or not 

the postal facility itself is a historic building.

In addition, the graphic includes no

mention of National Historic Landmarks, 

which are afforded additional protection

under Section 110(f) of the NHPA.

Further, the second box labeled 

“requirements” includes “public meetings.” 

Under the Section 106 regulations, this

GO TO NEXT 

ENVIRONMENTAL

TOPIC

YES

NO

REQUIREMENTS

• Conduct public meetings.

• Monitor impacts and mitigation measures during 

construction.

• Follow the NHPA Section 106 process (does not

apply to Native American, archaeological sites).

• Obtain required permits.

d this

pecific cultu

YE

 SITE EVALUATION

• Are any archaeological, historical,

or cultural materials located on or near

the site?

• Is the site listed in the National Register?

• Will the actions directly or indirectly affect

any archaeological, historical, or cultural

sites or materials?

• Will construction directly or indirectly

affect any archaeological, historical, 

or cultural sites or materials?

COMPLIANCE ACTIONS

• Issue public notices.

• Develop mitigation plans.

• Initiate NHPA Section 106 process.

• Develop monitoring procedures for the

construction phase.

• Obtain excavation permits.

USPS Handbook RE-6, Exhibit 3-4.1, Page 3-78
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 21

is not a requirement. While consultation is a requirement, it may or may not include “public 

meetings.” In addition, it states that following the Section 106 process does not apply to 

“Native American archaeological sites.” This is inaccurate; the Section 106 process is required 

for all federal undertakings, and consideration of effects must be given to all resources 

meeting the definition of a “historic property” (any property listed on or eligible for listing on 

the NRHP). Any archaeological site that meets the definition of historic property must be 

considered in the Section 106 process. When an undertaking may affect a historic property

of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, the 

agency is required by statute to consult with such entities.

Finally, the box entitled “compliance actions” lists “initiate NHPA Section 106 process” after 

“issue public notices” and “develop mitigation plans.” It is unclear if this list of actions is 

intended to be conducted in the order listed (this is the impression given), but if so, it directs 

the initiation of Section 106 far too late in the decision-making process. Section 106 requires 

that agencies consider alternatives that will avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. 

If an agency initiates Section 106 after development of “mitigation plans,” it implies that 

an alternative has been chosen without the benefit of consultation in accordance with the 

Section 106 process and creates the risk that the opportunity for meaningful consideration of 

alternatives, and comment by the ACHP, may be foreclosed. In such cases, an agency may be 

unable to complete the Section 106 process as required by law.

DISPOSAL PROCEDURES

To address an ongoing pattern of operating budget deficits caused by declining first-class mail 

volume, competition from other private mail and parcel delivery firms, and the requirement 

to pre-pay retiree health benefits and pension funds, the USPS initiated the “Mail Processing 

Network Rationalization Initiative” to create a more streamlined processing and distribution 

network that is intended to use fewer facilities to handle an existing and projected decline in 

national mail volumes. An important component in the USPS projected downsizing is the sale 

of excess post offices and related building types.

According to the USPS, it initiates the process by looking at optimizing its facilities network 

with “node studies” of geographic areas throughout the nation. This computer modeling tool 

looks at various information, including the following:

• size of the existing facilities;

• excess space in the facilities; 

• optimal size required for operations;

• lease costs of the existing sites (if leased) and alternative sites;

• estimated net sale revenue of owned facilities, if sold after consolidation or relocation;

• construction costs for moving or consolidating operations to an alternate location; 

• transportation costs associated with moving the carriers; and 

• operating costs at the existing facilities. 

The USPS indicates that it has conducted node studies first in areas of the country with the 

most vibrant real estate markets, so that if a property is ultimately sold, the USPS will receive 

the highest values for its assets in the shortest time period. A node study may also be initiated 

in response to a lease termination or changing operational needs.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 22

At the conclusion of a node study, USPS management reviews the analysis and conclusions 

and if the study’s recommendations are approved, then the USPS Implementation Team 

begins to implement the recommended plan of action, subject to compliance with Section 106 

and other regulatory requirements. Although the USPS may begin marketing a property while 

certain regulatory requirements are still underway, it indicates that the USPS will not sell a 

property until it has fully complied with all applicable regulatory requirements.

Properties identified for disposal are first offered to GSA in accordance with the agreement 

between GSA and the USPS covering real and personal property relationships and associated 

services ( July 1985) and the accompanying 

letter of understanding (February 1985). 

If that agency does not have a use for the 

property, the USPS next offers the space

to prospective lessors or buyers in the 

following order:

• Other federal agencies

• State government agencies

• County government agencies

• Municipal government agencies

• Private sector

Upon selection of a transfer partner, the 

USPS negotiates the terms and conditions

of the sale or lease with the prospective 

owner or tenant. The USPS indicates 

that the contracts include clauses that protect historic building elements from removal, 

alteration, or destruction, and are designed to protect the building’s most significant 

architectural elements. The contracts also require that the USPS continue ownership of

New Deal Arts Collection items after the property transfer.

The USPS acknowledges the requirements of Sections 110 and 106 of the NHPA are 

intended to maintain and reuse its historic real estate, and, when the need to transfer a 

property to a new owner arises, to ensure 

the property’s legal protection in the 

future. It indicates that the USPS Federal 

Preservation Officer (FPO) works in 

conjunction with the USPS Facilities and 

Real Estate departments to help identify

historic properties for which redevelopment 

is the most problematic, either because

of the nature of the property itself or its 

surrounding neighborhood or community, 

and to support Section 106 consultation 

efforts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects that arise from the transfer.

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

 NEOCLASSICAL, 1935

 Credit: J. Brough Schamp 

(Bohlin Cywinski Jackson)

SOMERVILLE,

MASSACHUSETTS

 CLASSICAL REVIVAL,

1936

 Credit: Evan Kalish
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 23

When selecting a buyer or developer for a historic property, the USPS reports that it seeks 

an entity that can afford to redevelop the property, has a redevelopment plan that retains the 

important historic characteristics of the property, and is willing to accept legal restrictions 

for the long-term preservation of the property. The USPS asserts that it strives to find a 

balance between historic preservation and property disposal goals when making property sale 

decisions. Further, the USPS states that it is often in the best interest of the USPS to retain 

ownership of a vacant or underutilized property until the surrounding neighborhood can 

support the sale and redevelopment of large buildings. In some cases, it can take several years 

for a neighborhood to become economically viable enough to support a sale. According to the 

USPS, in the case of historic properties, the agency’s preference is to retain ownership for as 

long as it deems necessary in order to ensure the building’s preservation and to protect the 

USPS’s property interests.

SCOPE OF THE DISPOSAL PROGRAM

To support development of this report, the USPS provided a table listing all historic post 

offices sold since 2012 (below). In all but one of these instances, the Section 106 process was 

concluded by a finding of “no adverse effect.” Under the Section 106 regulations, when a federal 

agency makes a finding of “no adverse effect” and neither the SHPO nor any of the consulting 

parties objects to that finding, the agency is not required to notify the ACHP about the 

finding, and the process concludes without the need for an MOA or PA.

The USPS made a finding of “no adverse effect” in 13 of the 14 cases listed below based 

on the use of a preservation covenant that it deemed would ensure the long-term preservation 

of the property’s historic significance. These preservation covenants are held either by the 

SHPO, a CLG, one or more private preservation organizations, or by a city approved by 

the applicable SHPO to hold a preservation covenant. In the last case where a covenant was 

not attached to the property (Annapolis, Maryland), the Maryland SHPO and consulting 

parties concurred with the USPS’s finding of “no adverse effect” based upon the requirements 

of state law that obligated the purchaser, the State of Maryland, to consult with the SHPO 

to determine whether subsequent plans would adversely affect the historic property and 

then consult to “determine whether a practicable plan exists to avoid, mitigate, or satisfactorily

reduce a significant adverse effect.” Failure to agree on such measures would result in 

further consultation but, like Section 106, the project would be able to proceed without 

any such measures.

BURLINGAME, 

CALIFORNIA

 SPANISH ECLECTIC

AND SPANISH

COLONIAL REVIVAL,

1941

 Credit: USPS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 24

The USPS also provided a table of historic post offices currently on the market for sale 

(below). In these cases, the USPS initiated the Section 106 compliance process once a decision 

had been tentatively made to dispose of a historic post office. The USPS must satisfy a 

number of regulatory requirements before making a final decision to sell a retail post office, 

whether or not it is historic. Until those requirements are completed, the USPS indicates that 

it does not make a final decision to sell. After making a final decision to sell, if operational 

needs change or the USPS is unable to find an alternative location to provide service, then the 

sale process stops, as well as any compliance processes underway (including Section 106).

HISTORIC POST OFFICES SOLD SINCE 2012

ID NUMBER PROPERTY NAME 106 PROCESS CONCLUSION

CALENDAR YEAR 2012

046408-G01 North Little Rock Main Street 

Station, Little Rock, AR No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

058022-G01 Ukiah, CA MPO No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

058106-G01 Venice, CA MPO No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

082550-G01 Fairfield, CT MPO No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

251830-G01 Chelsea, MI MPO No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

366040-G01 Pinehurst Village Station, 

Pinehurst, NC No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

317280-G01 Reno, NV DTS No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

CALENDAR YEAR 2013

054182-G07 Santa Monica, CA MPO No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

105000-G02 Georgetown Station,

Washington, DC No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

230216-G01 Annapolis, MD MPO

No Adverse Effect - Transferred to state;

Maryland Historical Trust Act of 1985, 

as Amended (State Finance and 

Procurement Article § 5A-325 of the 

Annotated Code of Maryland)

268361-G01 St. Paul, MN MPO

and Customs House No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

419492-G01 York, PA MPO No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

474704-G01 La Follette, TN MPO No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded

CALENDAR YEAR 2014

469810-G01 Yankton, SD MPO No Adverse Effect - Covenant Recorded
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 25

 * Stamford originally involved an MOA drafted in 2007. However, the USPS made a finding 

of “no adverse effect” in 2011, despite indication by the developer purchasing the post office 

of their intent to demolish a 1939 addition and build two high-rise residential buildings 

immediately behind the post office. Litigation challenging the project under the NHPA

and NEPA remains pending.

 ** USPS reports that the Section 106 consultation for the Downtown Main Post Office 

in Houston, Texas, will be concluded with an MOA, but that the consultation is ongoing. 

The ACHP has not yet been notified of this consultation and development of the MOA, 

as required by 36 CFR § 800.6.

*** USPS reports that the Section 106 consultation for the Camas, Washington, Post Office 

was concluded with an MOA in 2010. However, the ACHP has no record of being notified 

of this consultation and development of the MOA, as required by 36 CFR § 800.6. 

According to the USPS, the facility has not yet been sold as of the date of this report. 

The USPS anticipates continuing to review its facilities network across the United States, 

but due to the large number of post offices, this review will take a number of years to complete. 

As noted above, the USPS reports that it is first focusing on those real estate markets that 

would yield the most revenue in the least amount of time for properties that are sold. The 

USPS reports that several areas are currently under study but did not disclose the location of 

those areas. Further, it indicates that because the results of those studies are not yet available, 

the USPS cannot identify the number or location of future disposals. The USPS does not 

have a numeric goal for future disposals.

HISTORIC POST OFFICES CURRENTLY FOR SALE

ADDRESS 106 STATUS COVENANT HOLDER

2000 Allston Way, Berkeley CA ONGOING To Be Determined

220 Park Rd, Burlingame CA COMPLETE City of Burlingame

380 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto CA COMPLETE City of Palo Alto

74 Olivia St, Derby CT COMPLETE CT SHPO

27 Masonic St, New London CT COMPLETE CT SHPO

421 Atlantic Street, Stamford CT COMPLETE CT SHPO*

321 E Kenilworth Ave, Villa Park IL COMPLETE IL SHPO

237 Washington St, Somerville MA ONGOING MA SHPO

860 Penniman Ave, Plymouth MI COMPLETE MI SHPO

2421 13th Street, Gulfport MS COMPLETE MS SHPO

20 Palmer Square, Princeton NJ ONGOING NJ SHPO

558 Grand Concourse, Bronx,

New York NY ONGOING

New York City Landmarks

Preservation Commission &

New York Landmarks Conservancy

435 Wyoming Avenue, Kingston PA COMPLETE PA SHPO

401 Franklin Street, Houston TX ONGOING MOA**

440 NE 5th Ave, Camas WA COMPLETE MOA***
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 26

USPS COMPLIANCE 

WITH SECTION 106

At the request of the ACHP in order to facilitate preparation of this report, the USPS 

provided the description of its program to comply with Section 106. USPS compliance is 

guided by internal agency policies regarding historic properties and compliance procedures. 

These policies apply to more than the disposal of historic properties; they govern the manner 

in which USPS conducts Section 106 review for all activities potentially affecting historic 

properties in its stewardship, including maintenance, repair, new construction, and demolition. 

While issues regarding disposals have risen to the forefront in recent years, USPS’s record 

of compliance with Section 106 for all types of activities has been inconsistent. As such, 

the policies and guidance available to USPS personnel are of a broader concern and would 

benefit from updating and improvement. 

Policies concerning historic properties and related USPS responsibilities are outlined in 

the USPS guidance documents “Handbook RE-1, Realty Acquisition and Management” 

(updated June 2008) and “RE-6, Facilities Environmental Handbook.” These documents 

describe USPS procedures regarding cultural resources, including Section 106 compliance, 

identification and evaluation of historic properties, preparation of National Register 

nominations, and disposition of items from the New Deal Arts Collection. These guidance 

documents are provided to USPS facilities employees via hardcopy and/or online via the 

USPS internal network.

The following is the description provided 

by the USPS of its disposal procedures:

“With respect specifically to Section 106 

procedures for a property tentatively

designated for disposal, as you are aware, 

the Postal Service first determines whether 

the property is historic, as defined in the 

Section 106 regulations. The Postal Service 

makes this determination using internal 

Postal Services resources as well as outside 

resources, such as the National Register of

Historic Places and the National Archives. 

Although not required by the regulations, for some properties, the Postal Service hires a 

qualified contractor to conduct further investigation to assist with that determination. If the 

Postal Service determines the property is historic, then the Postal Service begins consultation 

with the requisite consulting parties it has identified, including those parties identified in 

consultation with the applicable SHPO. The Postal Service provides the SHPO and other 

consulting parties with a letter detailing information about the property, the findings of

the Postal Service and other requisite information to commence the consultative process. 

Additionally, the Postal Service notifies the public and considers all public comments and 

input that it receives. The USPS then engages in further communications with the SHPO 

and applicable consulting parties with respect to its finding, and if applicable, proposed 

WESTPORT,

CONNECTICUT

 CLASSICAL REVIVAL,

1935

Credit: Evan Kalish
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 27

actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any

adverse effect(s). Consultation continues

until the Section 106 process concludes.

With respect to a historic property that is

ultimately determined to be sold, the Postal 

Service implements the agreed upon plan

for the property, such as a preservation 

covenant, preservation easement or MOA, 

at such time as the property sale closes.” 

(Correspondence from Daniel Delahaye, 

USPS to Reid Nelson, Director, Office of 

Federal Agency Programs, ACHP, February

20, 2014)

The USPS asserts that it involves 

community stakeholders through its 

Community Relations Program (CRP)

during the planning phase of projects that 

include the sale or transfer of properties 

to new owners. While the USPS indicates 

that other stakeholders, including leasing or

purchasing parties and regulatory agencies, are also consulted, historic preservation advocacy

groups have advised the ACHP that their requests for consulting party status have routinely 

been ignored, sometimes for months or even years.

The USPS indicates that its process includes public hearings in the community to provide 

local stakeholders with an opportunity to express concerns about the proposed project. It 

recognizes that suspending service and selling USPS property, especially properties that 

represent the historic character of a community, are often contentious. The USPS states that 

it is committed to evaluating the needs of the community at large while balancing agency

responsibilities with its mission as it makes decisions about property disposition.

The USPS indicates that if a property is proposed for transfer to a party that is not a federal 

agency and the property is listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP, the USPS carries out 

Section 106 consultation as required. On those rare occasions when the USPS determines that 

the transfer will result in an adverse effect, the USPS will enter into an MOA with the SHPO 

and other appropriate consulting parties. The MOA will require that protective covenants 

or a property easement is included as a legal requirement of the sale or transfer to ensure 

protection of the property after it is transferred. The USPS states that the ACHP is notified 

of a property transfer by the USPS to another party if an MOA is developed under Section 

106 of the NHPA. However, it is important to note that the Section 106 regulations actually

require a federal agency to notify the ACHP of an adverse effect finding before starting to 

negotiate an MOA. This is to provide the ACHP an opportunity to join the consultation if it 

believes such engagement is warranted. 

The USPS indicates that it will not lease or exchange a historic property to any party if 

the USPS determines that the proposed lease or exchange will not adequately ensure the 

preservation of the historic property. However, the USPS provided no information on what 

constitutes adequate assurance of preservation for its agency.

The procedures described above by the USPS may appear reasonable to meet the requirements 

of Section 106. But in practice, numerous flaws have become evident as individual disposals 

have been undertaken. The following section discusses these issues.

NORTHFIELD,

MINNESOTA

 COLLEGIATE GOTHIC,

1936

 Top Credit:

John Twohig ©2012

 Bottom Credit:

Construction of the 

post office/Northfield

Historical Society
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 28

The ACHP has found a number of issues related to USPS compliance with Section 106 for 

the disposal of historic postal facilities. These issues have been identified through the ACHP’s 

own interaction with the USPS, both programmatically and on a number of specific disposal 

cases, and through input from stakeholders solicited for this report. 

TRANSPARENCY 

In both project specific consultations and programmatic assessment of the USPS Section 106 

compliance for the disposal program, the ACHP has observed significant issues with regard 

to the transparency and timeliness of the USPS information sharing and decision-making

process. This has been reinforced by written comments and testimony provided at the March

11, 2014, meeting in Oakland by stakeholders involved in numerous disposal undertakings. 

This is especially troubling in light of the finding by the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) in 2007 regarding communication by the USPS when implementing “mail processing 

realignment”. GAO found that while the USPS had made improvements to its communication 

practices, it continued “to have gaps related to engaging stakeholders and the public in the 

realignment process and effectively communicating decisions.” GAO further found that the 

process did not “provide adequate notification to stakeholders, lacked transparency into how 

public input is considered” and that the USPS provided only “limited information to the public 

after decisions are made.”

Similar concerns were expressed by the USPS OIG some six years later in its March 27, 

2013, report entitled “Lessons Learned from Mail Processing Network Rationalization 

Initiatives”. In that report, the USPS OIG recommended that “management improve 

communications with stakeholders by ensuring they share accurate and consistent information 

on consolidation impacts.”

This pattern of shortfalls in USPS communication practices and procedures continues to 

the present with regard to decision making in the Section 106 process. It particularly affects 

Section 106 compliance since the foundation of the process is consultation, defined as the 

“process of seeking, discussing, and considering the views of other participants, and, where 

feasible, seeking agreement with them regarding matters arising in the section 106 process” 

(36 CFR § 800.16).

In a description of the Section 106 compliance process for disposal of historic post offices 

provided to the ACHP, the USPS indicates that “public hearings are held in the community

to provide local stakeholders with an opportunity to express concerns about the proposed 

project.” The USPS further indicates that it notifies “the public and considers all public 

comments and input...” (Correspondence from Daniel Delahaye, USPS to Reid Nelson, 

Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, ACHP, February 20, 2014) However, the 

opportunity to “express concerns” and the collection of “public comments and input” are not 

synonymous with the consultation process required by Section 106.

ISSUES IN THE SECTION 106 

REVIEW OF DISPOSAL OF 

HISTORIC POSTAL FACILITIES
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 29

In addition, when discussing the nationwide disposal program with the ACHP and others, 

the USPS has been unwilling or unable to share information with regard to the future scope 

and duration of the program. In an attempt to assist the USPS to establish a more effective 

and efficient compliance process, the ACHP, SHPOs, and the NTHP have repeatedly

requested information from the USPS to aid in understanding how many more historic postal 

facilities may be subject to disposal, how long the program may continue, and the geographic 

distribution or concentration of future disposals. Whether this information is lacking due to 

poor planning or purposefully withheld, the result is the same: the USPS cannot or will not 

accept overtures of assistance from the ACHP and others who could improve the process, 

establish efficiencies in process and personnel, and develop partnerships that would strengthen 

relationships and communication channels with stakeholders.

TIMELINESS

The Section 106 regulations define adverse effects to include “reasonably foreseeable effects 

caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or 

be cumulative.” (36 CFR § 800.5(a)(1)). Reasonably foreseeable effects, for example, include 

transferring a historic post office building out of federal ownership as a consequence of 

deciding to relocate the post office function. They also include plans of a private developer 

when such plans have been disclosed to the USPS in advance of the sale of the historic 

property. These reasonably foreseeable and cumulative effects must be assessed by the USPS 

before making a decision to relocate functions and cannot be delayed until later when deciding 

how exactly to dispose of the no longer needed property.

In correspondence regarding several post office dispositions, the USPS has dismissed the 

notion that it should comply with Section 106 at the time of its decision to cease or relocate 

postal services by stating that it would comply with Section 106 at some time in the future if 

the USPS decides to sell the building. These two decisions, however, are inextricably linked, 

not two separate, unrelated actions. This was especially evident in the final determination 

letter regarding the Bronx Post Office. In this case, the USPS announced its “determination to 

proceed with the relocation of retail services” from the Bronx Post Office, and confirmed in the 

next sentence that the “plans also include marketing the sale of the property.” (Correspondence 

from Joseph J. Mulvey, Real Estate Specialist, USPS, to Ruben Diaz, Jr., Bronx Borough

President, March 14, 2013)

The USPS position that the cessation or relocation of services and the sale of buildings are 

not interrelated and that compliance with Section 106 is not necessary prior to USPS’s final 

decision to relocate post office functions is unfounded as its actions and words clearly illustrate 

that these decisions are directly related. In addition, postponing initiation of Section 106 

Reasonably foreseeable 

effects, for example, 

include transferring 

a historic post offi ce 

building out of 

federal ownership 

as a consequence of 

deciding to relocate the 

post offi ce function.

BRONX, NEW YORK

 COLONIAL REVIVAL,

1936

 Credit: USPS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 30

consultation risks the possibility that the Section 106 process will be “blamed” for delaying the 

sale of the building, when, in fact, implementation of the process by USPS is at fault. In such

cases, the Section 106 process may be rushed or truncated to accommodate project timelines, 

rather than allowing full, meaningful consultation with all parties.

INCLUSIVENESS

The ACHP and stakeholders in numerous disposal cases have observed significant flaws in 

the USPS consultation practices. This includes the exclusion of potential consulting parties 

from the Section 106 consultation process, without reasonable explanation. In a number of 

cases, the USPS declined to provide consulting party status to organizations that had a clear 

interest in the process. The ACHP understands from some consulting parties and preservation 

advocates that in recent months USPS has shown more willingness to engage with

constituents and consulting parties, facilitating the Section 106 process. This is an encouraging

development that, if adopted as a widespread agency practice, will reflect positive change. 

The USPS has a legal obligation in accordance with the Section 106 regulations to identify

and invite certain consulting parties (SHPOs, tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, 

applicants, and local governments) into the Section 106 consultation and consider requests 

from other potential consulting parties for individual undertakings. In addition, the USPS 

would benefit from proactive and consistent outreach to preservation stakeholders regarding

the overall post office disposal program, not just for specific cases. Such outreach would 

facilitate a consultative process that builds relationships and results in a more transparent and 

effective compliance process.

TERRE HAUTE,

INDIANA

 NEO-CLASSICAL,

1934

 Credit: USPS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 31

COVENANTS

The ACHP and preservation stakeholders continue to have a number of concerns regarding 

the use of preservation covenants as a mechanism to make a finding of no adverse effect. 

Specifically, the ACHP shares the concerns of others that the language in a number of 

proposed covenants may not be sufficient to ensure long-term preservation of the historic 

property, as required by the Section 106 regulations for a finding of no adverse effect. For 

example, a number of covenants have been proposed and enacted that broadly allow for the 

termination of the covenant “for good cause”. This ability to remove the long-term protection 

of the property (in many cases with little recourse for the public or preservation community) 

undermines the effectiveness of the covenant and therefore cannot ensure the long-term 

preservation of the historic property. In addition, the USPS relies on a model or template 

covenant in nearly every Section 106 consultation that contains significant flaws. Reliance on 

this flawed document has resulted in considerable conflict in a number of cases. While some 

more recent covenants have seen improvement with regard to these issues, many covenants 

previously enacted remain in force, potentially placing those historic properties at risk despite 

the fact that the USPS placed a covenant upon them.

An additional concern is that the USPS provides no financial assistance to potential covenant 

holders for the enforcement of the covenant. The acceptance of a covenant imposes an 

affirmative responsibility on the holder, both procedural and fiscal. Enforcing a covenant 

requires routine monitoring of the building, review of plans or alterations that may be 

proposed by the owner, and the ability to legally force compliance with the terms of the 

covenant if necessary. This requires the holder to make a commitment of human and financial 

resources. As such, it is a common preservation practice to create covenants with a lump sum 

payment paid by the conveyor of the property to the holder of the covenant or a commitment 

by the new building owner to pay a monitoring fee. 

To date, the USPS has been unwilling to commit any funds to covenant holders, instead 

asking those accepting the covenants to bear the entire financial burden. While the USPS’s 

financial constraints are well known, they could pass along the financial responsibility to the 

new building owner. The majority of potential covenant holders are non-profit organizations, 

many small, operating within fiscal limitations. As a result of this issue, a number of potential, 

technically well-qualified covenant holders have declined to accept covenants on historic post 

offices, being unable to bear the financial burden without compensation.

When an agency proposes a finding of “no adverse effect” based on a covenant, it requires the 

concurrence of the SHPO. If a SHPO disagrees with that finding due to the sufficiency of the 

covenant provisions, and the SHPO and the federal agency are unable to resolve their differing

opinions, then the dispute is referred by the agency to the ACHP for comment. This scenario 

is known as a “disputed finding of effect” (36 CFR Part 800.5(c)(2)). The ACHP provides its 

opinion to the agency, which is required to consider the ACHP’s views but can reach its own 

final determination as to adverse effect. 

While the Section 106 regulations make provision for disputed findings of effect, they are 

rare in the overall universe of Section 106 cases. In the case of USPS disposal of historic post 

offices, disputed findings of effect have become commonplace. This pattern indicates a basic 

problem with the USPS approach to meeting its Section 106 obligations.

Further, in those cases where the USPS has referred a disputed finding of effect to the ACHP 

in accordance with the Section 106 regulations, in all cases the ACHP has provided an opinion 

consistent with the SHPO; that is, the ACHP has advised the USPS that the finding of no 

adverse effect was not appropriate and recommended changes to the proposed covenant that 

In the case of USPS 

disposal of historic 

post offi ces, disputed 

fi ndings of effect have 

become commonplace.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 32

would ensure protection of the historic property. In all cases however, the USPS has indicated 

that while it took the ACHP opinion into account, it disagreed with that opinion and 

proceeded with its initial finding without further consideration for the concerns of consulting

parties. Despite the ACHP’s consistent recommendation to change its practices regarding 

covenants to avoid future disputes, the USPS has not done so.

Although USPS has been able to work through some of the questions on the use of covenants 

for particular disposals, these issues have resulted in a number of consultations stalling or 

concluding without clearly successful preservation outcomes.

ALTERNATIVES TO COVENANTS

If a covenant is not feasible but the postal facilities are located within municipalities that have 

been designated as CLGs in accordance with the NHPA, adverse effects could be mitigated by

utilizing the CLG review process as an alternative to the attachment of a covenant, provided 

that the SHPO concurs with this approach. While the USPS would need to ensure that local 

review processes did apply to the subject property, this arrangement could effectively provide 

for ongoing oversight of the historic property. In some cases, the USPS or the new developer/

owner may need to work with the CLG to designate the property under the local ordinance. 

Since local review ordinances typically do not mandate preservation in the way that a covenant 

would, agreeing on such a process may not support a no adverse effect finding since the longterm protection of the property could not be guaranteed. However, the Section 106 agreement 

could refer to that process as part of the resolution of adverse effects. 

COMMUNITY IMPACTS

In the USPS’s 2008 report to the ACHP 

under EO 13287, it acknowledged that most

historic post offices that remain in federal 

ownership are located in small town centers

or dense urban cores. The importance of 

these downtown post offices was reflected

in their design, often ranking them among 

the fi nest buildings in a community. As such, 

these post offi ces have occupied key roles in

community identity and remain prominent 

buildings within their communities. The 

specter of the vacancy of a key resource in a

historic district raises concerns of community

viability and vitality. In addition, the

potential disappearance of a federal 

presence in communities is often viewed

as a significant loss for the community. 

The ACHP is aware that several communities have expressed interest in acquiring their 

community’s historic post office. During the visit to Oakland in preparation for this report, as 

well as through written comments provided, the ACHP was informed that local governments 

offering to purchase the post office at fair market value (and potentially lease back space for the 

USPS to continue retail operations) have been rebuffed by the USPS. The USPS has provided 

no explanation for this apparent unwillingness to entertain local government overtures. 

Recognizing that communities often have a strong interest in maintaining historic post offices 

PINEHURST, NORTH 

CAROLINA

 COLONIAL REVIVAL,

1935

 Credit: The Pilot,

March 20, 2014
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 33

for community use, eliminating them as a potential recipient excludes them from being an 

effective partner in the long-term preservation of historic post offices. Unfortunately, it also 

puts some of these communities in an adversarial role with the USPS. 

MISINTERPRETING THE ROLE OF CERTIFIED 

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

The 1980 amendments to the NHPA established the CLG program to “encourage the 

direct participation of local governments in the identification, evaluation, registration, and 

preservation of historic properties within their jurisdictions.” They also established a set 

of requirements and standards for CLGs, assuring some degree of consistency and further 

defining the process for local involvement and review. These include the duty to:

• enforce appropriate state and local laws and regulations for the designation and protection 

of historic properties;

• establish a historic preservation review commission by local ordinance;

• maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties;

• provide for public participation in the local preservation program; and

• satisfactorily perform responsibilities delegated to it by the state.

The USPS has incorrectly interpreted the role of CLGs in the Section 106 process. 

Based upon the foregoing criteria, the USPS determined in several cases that the CLG 

“shall act as the agent” of the SHPO. However, these criteria are unrelated to the Section 106 

process. Rather they are federally delegated functions tailored to state and local historic 

designation, survey, and protection. While a CLG can act as the agent of the SHPO in

certain circumstances, such delegation is by mutual agreement between the SHPO and the 

CLG and does not automatically forfeit the former’s responsibilities in favor of the latter. 

It is not the prerogative of a federal agency to choose which entity within a state will fulfill 

the responsibilities of the SHPO. 

The Section 106 regulations do mandate that a CLG be invited to the table (36 CFR § 800.2(c)

(3)), where it can participate in the process and contribute significantly to seeking resolution 

to issues. But the CLG cannot act in lieu of the SHPO in the Section 106 process absent a 

formal delegation of such responsibilities through a Programmatic Agreement developed in 

accordance with 36 CFR § 800.14(b).

CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES

Nationwide, the USPS gives no special consideration in the disposal decision-making process 

to the historic significance of a post office when determining if the facility is a viable candidate 

for relocation or cessation of services and disposal. This is a critical concern as it is far 

preferable to have buildings that were historically designed for public uses remain publically

accessible. Such consideration is supported by federal policy reflected in two key Executive 

Orders, which the USPS has committed to comply with in Board Resolution 82-7:

Executive Order 12072 states that “Federal space shall conserve existing urban resources.” 

(Section 1-101). Further, it indicates that “procedures for meeting space needs in urban areas 

shall give serious consideration to the impact a site selection will have on improving the social, 

economic, environmental, and cultural conditions of the communities in the urban area.” 

(Section 1-102). In conducting processes to meet federal space needs agencies must consider 

the “utilization of human, natural, cultural, and community resources.” (Section 1-104(c)). 

It is not the 

prerogative of a 

federal agency 

to choose which 

entity within a 

state will fulfi ll the 

responsibilities of 

the SHPO.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 34

The agency is required to consider “utilization of buildings of historic, architectural, or cultural 

significance” and “opportunities for locating cultural, educational, recreational, or commercial 

activities within the proposed facility.” (Section 1-105(b),(e)).

Executive Order 13006, issued in 1996, directs federal agencies not only to locate their 

operations in established downtowns, but also to give first consideration to locating in 

historic properties within historic districts. The order requires the federal government to 

“utilize and maintain, wherever operationally appropriate and economically prudent, historic 

properties and districts, especially those located in central business areas.” It also directs federal 

agencies to give “first consideration” to historic buildings when “operationally appropriate and 

economically prudent.” The substance of the Executive Order was codified into law as an 

amendment to the NHPA in 2000. (16 U.S.C. § 470h-2(a)(1)).

In addition, prior to making a formal decision on the sale of a historic post office, the USPS 

must take seriously its legal obligations to consider options to lease the facility rather than sell 

it outright. Section 111 of the NHPA requires that any federal agency “... shall, to the extent 

practicable, establish and implement alternatives for historic properties, including adaptive use, 

that are not needed for current or projected agency purposes, and may lease a historic property

owned by the agency to any person or organization...”

In 2010, a federal district court in Washington found that the Federal Reserve Bank of San 

Francisco failed to comply with Section 111 of the NHPA by authorizing the sale of a historic 

federal building without considering adaptive use, lease, or exchange. The court stated that “[t]

he congressional directive to at least consider, if not implement, adaptive use or lease strategies 

to protect historic properties is clear ... and the failure to do so would constitute a violation 

of NHPA.” (Comm. for Preservation of the Seattle Fed. Reserve Bank Bldg. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of 

San Francisco, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26084 at 19 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2010)). The USPS 

must consider its legal obligations prior to proceeding down a path that would commit it to 

transferring a historic property out of federal control.

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO SECTION 106 

COMPLIANCE

Since 2012, the ACHP has consistently encouraged the USPS to consider programmatic 

approaches to Section 106 compliance for the disposal program as an effective mechanism 

to uniformly address consideration of alternatives and establish procedures for consultation 

with the public. A PA could govern a number of disposals within a geographic area; such an 

area could be defined as a single state, a region, or nationwide. This approach would allow 

the USPS to front load consultation on disposal undertakings, resulting in efficiencies in 

the Section 106 process and the identification of mitigation measures that could be applied 

regionally or nationally. A PA could also establish standard practices for the use of covenants 

and set in place agreements with other organizations on holding covenants. In addition, 

consultation for development of a PA could include all the parties who would likely have an 

interest in each individual undertaking, thereby identifying issues and concerns of consulting 

parties early on and enlisting all the parties in problem solving. Such a programmatic approach 

would allow the USPS to conclude Section 106 responsibilities for all undertakings covered in 

the PA, focusing agency resources elsewhere. 

A Programmatic 

Agreement could 

also establish 

standard practices 

for the use of 

covenants and set 

in place agreements 

with other 

organizations on 

holding covenants.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 35

USPS STAFF CAPABILITIES

In June 2012, the USPS FPO indicated that he was involved in more than 70 separate Section 

106 undertakings nationwide. Clearly, current reduced USPS staffing levels cannot fully 

meet the needs required to adequately carry out this responsibility. USPS cultural resource 

responsibilities were previously carried out by staff at both the national level by the FPO 

and at the USPS Facility Service Offices by Historic Preservation Coordinators. Through 

reorganization, all responsibilities are now consolidated into 11⁄2 positions at the national level. 

According to the USPS, until recently, none of the staff assigned cultural resource duties met 

the Secretary’s Professional Qualification Standards (48 FR 22716). It is a positive step that 

the incoming USPS FPO does meet these Standards. However, the overall manpower assigned 

to manage USPS compliance responsibilities for its historic properties is inadequate to meet 

the need for community interaction and meaningful consultation required under Section 106.

In addition, in information provided by the USPS to the ACHP for preparation of this 

report, the USPS characterizes the conduct of public hearings and request for public comment 

as the core of its Section 106 consultation process. As previously noted, these efforts are 

inadequate for purposes of Section 106 and represent a fundamental misunderstanding of 

the requirements of Section 106 and the meaning of consultation. It further demonstrates

the need for additional qualified staff that is well versed in the intent and requirements of the 

Section 106 process.

Finally, the USPS FPO position is organizationally located within Facilities Implementation 

(Design and Construction). Previously, this position was located in Realty Assets (Asset 

Management). As a result of this change, the FPO position has no input into disposal analyses. 

USPS POLICY AND PROCEDURES

In its 2008 report to the ACHP under EO 13287, the USPS indicated that it had completed 

the update of its procedural handbooks and manuals to correlate current federal laws with

existing USPS procedures and regulations. These revised handbooks address current 

regulations for protecting historic resources and their correlation with USPS policies. 

The revised documents are reportedly available to all USPS employees on the internal Postal 

Blue network and include the following:

• F-6, General Investment Policies and Procedures

• FE-1, Realty Acquisition and Management

• RE-1, Facilities Guide to Real Property Acquisitions and Related Services

• RE-5, Building and Site Security Requirements

• RE-6, Facilities Environmental Guide

• RE-12, Repair and Alteration Surveys

• RE-13, Repair and Alteration of Real Property Facilities

• RE-14, Design and Construction Handbook

Review of Handbook RE-6 indicates inaccurate interpretation of the Section 106 regulations 

and inadequate guidance on their implementation. Absent clear mandates and guidance to 

USPS personnel, implementation of the Section 106 regulations will remain inadequate.

Absent clear 

mandates and 

guidance to 

USPS personnel, 

implementation 

of the Section 106 

regulations will 

remain inadequate.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 36

PROTECTION OF AND 

ACCESS TO MURALS 

AND OTHER ARTWORK

Images on the walls of 1930s post offices 

have captured the American scene and

transformed the post office into a truly

democratic art gallery. During the Great 

Depression, Americans searched for images 

that could serve as beacons of hope during

a time of economic and emotional despair. 

Many of the post offices constructed during

the 1930s were adorned with murals or

other forms of artwork commissioned by

the federal government. Placement of the 

commissioned murals and sculptures in 

public buildings resulted from the desire to 

make original, quality art accessible to those

who otherwise had little or no opportunity

to see it. Today, these works of art remain 

prized community resources, often housed

within historic post offices. 

While the USPS indicates its intent to

retain ownership of artwork following

disposal of historic buildings, the longterm care and public access often remains 

in question. During the Oakland meeting, 

testimony was presented that asserted the 

deterioration of artwork, removal of murals 

from post offices, and little or no access 

afforded to the public following disposal of 

the historic buildings. 

COMPLIANCE WITH 

THE NATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT

A number of organizations have expressed 

concern with regard to the USPS process 

for complying with the NEPA. While the 

ACHP has no jurisdiction over an agency’s 

compliance with NEPA (NEPA assigns 

CEQ the task of ensuring that federal 

agencies meet its requirements), issues 

raised regarding NEPA are of concern, as 

NEPA requires consideration of cultural 

resources. The concepts of “coordination” 

BRONX, NEW YORK

 “RESOURCES OF AMERICA” MURAL

 BEN SHAHN AND BERNARDA BRYSON, 1938-39

 Credit: USPS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 37

and “integration” are found in both the CEQ NEPA regulations and Section 106 regulations, 

because they provide efficiencies, improve public understanding, and lead to more informed 

decisions. The ACHP and CEQ recently jointly published a handbook encouraging such

coordination: “NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106” 

(available at http://www.achp.gov/nepa106.html).

Effective NEPA review is expected to integrate other planning and environmental reviews, 

including impacts to historic properties. NEPA and Section 106 have independent statutory

requirements, and compliance with NEPA does not in itself satisfy an agency’s obligations 

under Section 106. If the proposed action is the type of undertaking with the potential to 

affect historic properties, the agency must initiate the Section 106 consultation process, and 

the findings of the Section 106 process are often reported in the NEPA review. 

A “categorical exclusion” (CATEX) is the least intensive form of NEPA compliance and is 

defined in NEPA as “a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment.” A CATEX is concluded with the determination 

that a proposed action falls within the category of actions and there are no extraordinary

circumstances that indicate environmental concerns merit further environmental review 

(40 CFR § 1508.4). Potential impacts to historic properties may constitute an extraordinary

circumstance that renders the use of a CATEX inappropriate for NEPA purposes. 

The USPS NEPA procedures state that “To be categorically excluded, it must be determined 

that a proposed action fits within a class listed and there are no extraordinary circumstances 

that may affect the significance of the proposal” (39 CFR § 775.6(a)). When there are no clear 

opportunities to avoid or mitigate impacts to historic properties, the potential impact would be 

considered an extraordinary circumstance. An effective process for complying with Section 106 

of the NHPA is therefore essential for proper compliance with NEPA. 

In January 2014, the USPS published an Interim Final Rule substantially revising its criteria 

for use of a CATEX for disposition of facilities (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-

01-13/html/2014-00324.htm). Prior to the interim final rule making, the USPS CATEX for 

dispositions of facilities provided for a CATEX in the following circumstance:

“Acquisition and disposal through sale, lease, transfer, or exchange of real property that 

does not involve an increase in volumes, concentrations, or discharge rates of wastes, air 

emissions, or water effluents, and that under reasonably foreseeable uses, have generally

similar environmental impacts as compared to those before the acquisition or disposal. A 

determination that the proposed action is categorically excluded can be based upon previous 

“reference actions” documented under § 775.6(b)(17).6.”

Under this CATEX, the agency would focus on the property proposed for disposition, 

examine the development plans of its potential buyers, and make specific determinations 

that the environment would not be harmed by its action. However, under the interim final 

CATEX, the USPS could bear a substantially lighter burden to consider how the environment 

would be affected by the disposal. The interim final CATEX could be used, absent 

extraordinary circumstances, in the following circumstance:

Disposal of properties where the size, area, topography, and zoning are similar to existing

surrounding properties and/or where current and reasonable anticipated uses are or would be 

similar to current surrounding uses (e.g., commercial store in a commercial strip, warehouse in 

an urban complex, office building in downtown area, row house or vacant lot in an urban area).
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 38

This would seemingly divert the analysis from the property itself and whether its disposal 

would cause an environmental impact, to focus instead on surrounding development that has 

already occurred.

The USPS uses as its principal rationale for its amended CATEX procedure that it seeks to 

be consistent with other agencies, such as GSA, which implemented a similar rule change in 

2000. In the Interim Final Rule, the USPS finds GSA’s experience and consideration to be 

a useful guide in how it manages its own NEPA process. The USPS however, stops short of 

reproducing GSA’s best practices regarding the management of historic buildings, a critical 

factor in GSA’s overall approach to NEPA and Section 106 obligations.

In addition to its much more thorough analysis of extraordinary circumstances, GSA has 

a detailed process for consideration of alternatives prior to disposal of federal property, as 

required by the NHPA. Its Federal Management Regulations contain specific provisions for 

historic properties that have not been comparably adopted by the USPS. For this reason, the 

USPS must be distinguished from GSA, which has policies in place to ensure that a full range 

of alternatives are considered before historic buildings are offered for sale.

The USPS however, 

stops short of 

reproducing GSA’s best 

practices regarding the 

management of historic 

buildings, a critical 

factor in GSA’s overall 

approach to NEPA and 

Section 106 obligations.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 39

This section contains the ACHP’s findings regarding USPS compliance with Section 106 of 

the NHPA for its relocation of services and disposal of historic postal facilities. These findings 

and their accompanying recommendations highlight the most significant issues related to the 

USPS disposal program and offer new strategies for going forward.

It is important to note that, while the Congress has asked the ACHP for steps it can take 

to ensure USPS compliance with Section 106, neither the NHPA nor the Section 106 

regulations authorize the ACHP to directly control or dictate the actions of the USPS. 

Legal enforcement of Section 106 occurs through civil litigation filed by members of the 

public. Recognizing this, the recommendations do include steps the ACHP can and will take 

to address the issues. More importantly, the ACHP, under its statutory authority to advise 

the President and the Congress and to “review the policies and programs of federal agencies 

and recommend to such agencies methods to improve the effectiveness, coordination, and 

consistency of those policies and programs with the policies and programs carried out under 

this Act” (16 U.S.C. § 470j), is providing recommendations for action by the Congress and the 

USPS itself. 

FINDING NO. 1

The responsibility of the USPS to comply with the requirements of Section 106, as a 

matter of law rather than discretionary policy, is supported by persuasive case law but is 

not clearly established.

USPS acknowledges through resolution of its Board of Governors that, as a matter of policy, 

it will abide by the general policies and requirements for historic preservation applicable 

to the federal government, specifically Sections 106, 110, and 111 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act and their implementing regulations. This spirit of “voluntary” compliance 

put forth by the USPS results in a Section 106 compliance process that is perceived by

stakeholders as reluctant, minimal, and only “going through the motions.” Further, this 

“voluntary” policy enables the USPS to select when and how they chose to comply with 

Section 106. While case law is clear that the USPS exemptions do not extend to NEPA 

(a statute very similar in nature to the NHPA), such case law has not directly addressed the 

issue with regard to the NHPA.

RECOMMENDATION

The Congress should clarify that the NHPA and its implementing regulations apply 

to all programs of the USPS, in order to remove any doubt that the USPS is legally 

obligated to comply with Sections 106, 110, and 111 of the NHPA and to conduct 

a strong and transparent consultation process with stakeholders as required by the 

implementing regulations.

FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USPS 

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 40

FINDING NO. 2

The continuation of USPS relocation and disposal actions for historic postal facilities 

without significant corrective steps can harm these historic properties of importance

to communities.

This report contains a series of recommendations for implementation by Congress and the 

USPS and for actions that will be undertaken by the ACHP. These recommendations and 

actions, implemented collectively, will result in a Section 106 compliance process for the 

disposal of historic postal facilities that fully considers the views of consulting parties and 

examines alternatives that can ensure the long term protection of historic properties. Until 

such time as these reforms are implemented however, continuing decision making and actions 

to relocate services from these historic facilities or disposing of the facilities perpetuates the 

inadequacies of the USPS Section 106 compliance process and puts the protection of historic 

properties at risk.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS should suspend any further actions to relocate services out of historic 

postal facilities and dispose of those historic facilities until such time as it fully 

implements the recommendations of this report. If the USPS fails to suspend such 

actions, the ACHP recommends that Congress direct the USPS to suspend all 

relocation of service decisions and disposal actions for postal facilities that are listed 

or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places until such time as 

the USPS fully implements the recommendations of this report directed to it.

FINDING NO. 3

The USPS defines the undertaking subject to Section 106 review too narrowly to 

enable consideration of alternatives and meaningful consultation with stakeholders.

The USPS has repeatedly expressed its interpretation of the Section 106 regulations that 

the initiation of compliance with Section 106 is necessary only when the USPS decides to 

initiate disposal of a historic post office. The ACHP disagrees with this interpretation. 

The decision to cease or relocate postal services and operations is inextricably linked to the 

decision to dispose of the building. They are not separate, unrelated actions: but for the 

relocation of postal operations, the disposal of the building would not occur.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS should define the undertaking for Section 106 purposes as both the 

proposal to cease/relocate postal services and operations and the subsequent proposal 

to dispose of the historic property.

FINDING NO. 4

The failure of the USPS to identify and consider alternatives to relocation of services 

and disposal of historic postal facilities does not meet the requirements of Section 106.

The Section 106 regulations state that “[t]he agency official shall ensure that the section 106 

process is initiated early in the undertaking’s planning so that a broad range of alternatives 
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 41

may be considered during the planning process for the undertaking.” (36 CFR 800.1(c)). 

The ACHP has no evidence that the USPS has explored, under Section 106, any alternatives 

to disposal of any of the historic post offices to date. Rather, by the time it initiates its Section 

106 process, it has already declared that sale is the only option, despite considerable objection 

in most cases from community leaders and preservation advocates.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS should initiate Section 106 consultation at the time relocation or cessation 

of services at a historic postal facility is considered, rather than waiting until 

disposal is proposed, in order to fully identify, evaluate, and consult upon a range of 

alternatives that could avoid or minimize effects.

FINDING NO. 5

Covenants being used by the USPS in the disposal of historic postal facilities are often 

insufficient to ensure long-term protection of historic properties.

The ACHP and preservation stakeholders continue to have a number of concerns regarding

the use of preservation covenants as a mechanism to make a finding of no adverse effect. 

Specifically, the language in a number of proposed covenants may not be sufficient to 

adequately ensure long-term preservation of the historic property, as required by the Section 

106 regulations to justify a finding of no adverse effect. For example, some covenants allow 

for the covenant to be terminated due to “good cause” or may not be in effect in perpetuity. 

In addition, the lack of financial resources being provided to potential covenant holders for 

the enforcement of the covenant, the role of CLGs in the Section 106 process and as covenant 

holders, and the lack of willing and able preservation organizations that have the capacity to 

enforce a covenant have been of concern.

RECOMMENDATION

The ACHP will work with the USPS, NCSHPO, the NTHP, and other 

stakeholders to develop a model covenant to serve as the basis for all future 

covenants used for historic post office disposals. Further, the ACHP will assist the 

USPS to identify preservation partners (nationwide, state, and local) and facilitate 

collaboration to establish partnerships for holding and enforcing covenants.

FINDING NO. 6

Sale of historic postal facilities to non-federal owners may result in an adverse effect under 

Section 106.

Many post offices were constructed and have operated for decades as the civic core of the 

community, serving as community meeting places and providing the federal presence in the 

community. The effect of this loss of traditional use on the significance of the historic property

should be determined through evaluation of the property’s significance in accordance with the 

National Register criteria. That is, if a post office is listed or eligible for the NRHP based 

solely on its architecture or design (National Register Criterion C), then a change of use 

would not constitute an adverse effect. However, if the significance is also tied to historical 

events (National Register Criterion A), such as the traditional function of providing retail 

mail service to the community, then changing the use of the property may constitute an adverse 

effect. (36 CFR § 800.5(a)(2)(iv))
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 42

In addition, while the use of covenants to reach a no adverse effect finding may be preferable 

to the USPS in the majority of cases, if efforts to identify a covenant holder and/or the 

attachment of a legally enforceable covenant are not feasible, then a finding of adverse effect is 

appropriate. The finding of no adverse effect is appropriate only when the covenant adequately

provides for long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance (which may include 

characteristics beyond its architectural features). Rather than insisting on the “one size fits all” 

approach of a no adverse effect finding and use of a preservation covenant, it is appropriate 

for the USPS to acknowledge that, at times, an adverse effect finding is the procedurally

correct course of action, leading to consultation with stakeholders to find ways to minimize 

or mitigate the adverse effects. 

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS must correctly apply all of the Criteria of Adverse Effect found in the 

Section 106 regulations (36 CFR 800.5) to determine when a finding of no adverse 

effect or adverse effect is warranted.

FINDING NO. 7

Local preservation ordinances administered by Certified Local Governments can be used

in appropriate cases to resolve the adverse effects resulting from the disposal of a historic 

post office.

Where postal facilities are located within municipalities that have been designated as CLGs, 

the CLG review process embodied in a local historic preservation ordinance has potential to 

serve as an alternative to a covenant.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS should explore partnerships with CLGs to facilitate the use of local 

ordinances as mitigation for adverse effects when the SHPO concurs.

FINDING NO. 8

Alternative property disposal systems that effectively deal with historic property transfers 

are available to the USPS.

The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 was designed, in part, to 

increase the efficiency and economy of federal government operations with regard to the 

procurement, utilization, and disposal of property. To fulfill this mandate, GSA’s Office 

of Real Property Disposal offers comprehensive services to federal agencies, including the 

USPS, in the marketing and sale of federal real estate at a cost lower than commercial vendors. 

GSA offers all services related to disposal of federal property, including compliance with

Section 106, and has a proven track record of efficient, cost-effective, competent service to

federal agencies.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS should evaluate the benefits of utilizing GSA’s Office of Real Property 

Disposal to conduct disposal activities, including Section 106 compliance.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 43

FINDING NO. 9

Alternative disposal authorities exist to allow historic postal facilities to remain in 

public ownership.

The Historic Surplus Property Program provides a cost-effective mechanism for iconic 

community resources to transfer to non-federal governmental entities, keeping important 

historic properties in the public domain and ensuring their long-term preservation. Authorized 

under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, the Historic Surplus 

Property Program (administered cooperatively by GSA and the National Park Service) 

authorizes cost-free conveyances of suitable surplus historic properties to states, counties, 

municipalities, and other governmental entities for use as a “historic monument,” which

includes properties listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Transferred properties may be 

used for a wide variety of public facilities or revenue-producing activities. 

While private and not-for-profit organizations cannot acquire property under this program, 

they may enter into long-term leases with recipients of historic surplus properties, and 

private developers with a long-term lease may be eligible to take advantage of federal historic 

preservation tax incentives. While disposal of historic property through this program would 

not generate revenue equivalent to selling the property to a private purchaser, it would achieve 

cost avoidance for the USPS through elimination of the ongoing overhead and maintenance 

costs associated with retaining ownership of the property and, more importantly, ensure 

protection of significant historic assets.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS should consider use of the Historic Surplus Property Program, including 

seeking the appropriate authority to do so if necessary, for select historic properties 

where protection of the property is paramount and the state or local government is 

interested in acquiring the property.

FINDING NO. 10

Program Alternatives are available to help USPS improve compliance with Section 106.

To meet challenges like those faced by the USPS, the Section 106 regulations allow for 

development of “program alternatives” to stand in place of the default Section 106 process. The 

regulations list five types of program alternatives, including a) alternate procedures, which can 

be adopted by an agency in lieu of the Section 106 regulations; b) Programmatic Agreements; 

c) exempted categories of activities; d) standard treatments for certain types of resources and 

impacts; and e) program comments. 

A program alternative could be negotiated to govern a number of disposals within a 

geographic area; such an area could be defined as a single state, a region, or nationwide. This 

approach may be especially helpful in states such as California due to the high number of 

disposals concentrated there. In addition, it would allow USPS to front load the consultation 

for disposals, resulting in efficiencies in the Section 106 process and the identification 

of mitigation measures that could be applied regionally or nationally. Consultation for 

development of a program alternative could include all the parties who would likely have an 

interest in each individual undertaking, thereby identifying issues and concerns of consulting 

parties early on and enlisting all the parties in problem-solving. This approach would allow 

the USPS to conclude Section 106 responsibilities for all undertakings covered in the program 

alternative, focusing agency resources elsewhere. 
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 44

RECOMMENDATION

The ACHP should continue to work with the USPS, NCSHPO, and other 

stakeholders to identify a program alternative appropriate to the scope and duration 

of the disposal program and work with the parties to develop such an approach.

FINDING NO. 11

The existing USPS historic preservation program lacks resources and proper influence to 

adequately ensure compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA.

A number of deficiencies in the USPS disposal program and compliance procedures noted in 

this report result from insufficient expertise, manpower, and training. This collective lack of 

resources has created a compliance program that is failing to implement proper consultation, 

conduct proactive project planning, and ensure meaningful, good faith stewardship of the 

historic properties entrusted to the USPS. In addition, it is important that the USPS work

with SHPOs on development of statewide historic contexts and actively inventory and identify

historic properties in accordance with Section 110 of the NHPA. A commitment is also 

needed from the USPS to maintain and improve the data contained within the USPS property

database, eFMS, to ensure USPS personnel have access to accurate information on regional 

and statewide historic trends to effectively manage and maintain its historic buildings.

Further, the USPS FPO position is located within Facilities Implementation (Design and 

Construction) and accordingly has no input into disposal analyses and decisions. In order to 

ensure the expertise of the FPO is utilized to inform disposal program planning and decision 

making, the FPO position should be part of the USPS Planning Group. As an alternative, this 

position could report directly to the Vice President for Facilities to ensure historic property

considerations are factored in early in the planning process and Section 106 compliance and 

consultation are fully and properly implemented.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS should expand its historic preservation program to provide adequate 

resources for regular historic property inventory, database management and 

maintenance, and increased numbers of qualified staff to conduct individual Section 

106 reviews and consultations. In addition, the FPO position should be relocated 

within the USPS organizational structure to enable full participation in disposal 

planning and decision making.

FINDING NO. 12

USPS personnel lack adequate guidance on the disposal of historic postal facilities and 

special consideration associated with the disposal of these properties.

Existing policy and guidance available to USPS personnel are dated, and in some cases, 

inaccurate in their description of the statutory and regulatory obligations of the USPS 

with regard to historic properties. USPS personnel need information on how the historic 

status of the property may influence disposal decision making, incorporating information on 

the significance of the facility in marketing materials (including the availability of historic 

preservation tax credits) and best practices for timing, communication, and decision making 

for historic property disposals.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 45

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS, in cooperation with the ACHP, should work with NCSHPO and other 

stakeholders to develop guidance and training for USPS employees on the process, 

procedures, and special considerations of disposal of historic post offices, including the 

implementation of the Section 106 process and consultation with stakeholders.

FINDING NO. 13

Potential purchasers/developers of historic post offices often lack knowledge of both the 

responsibilities associated with owning a property with a historic preservation covenant as 

well as the potential incentives available to them due to the property’s historic significance.

While many developers are knowledgeable about the considerations and opportunities offered 

when redeveloping historic properties, some certainly are not. Information should be made 

available to potential developers before they consider the purchase and redevelopment of an 

important part of a community’s historic heritage. Because there are purchasers of historic 

buildings with covenants that would subject them to requirements of the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and therefore may make redevelopment projects eligible 

for historic preservation tax credits, the goal would be to place more specific information in the 

hands of developers prior to the execution of sale of historic properties, so that they recognize 

the benefit of the buildings’ historic status as manifested in significant tax savings rather than 

see protective measures as a hindrance to their reuse. This effort would involve preparing

materials on the federal investment tax credit and gathering information on other similar state 

or local-level incentive programs for historic building rehabilitation.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS, in cooperation with the ACHP, should work with NCSHPO and other 

preservation partners (such as the National Park Service who administers the federal 

investment tax credit program) to develop guidance for developers on covenants 

and historic property stewardship, including information on federal and state tax 

incentive programs, and how assuming the cost of managing a covenant could be 

offset by the corresponding decrease in the local tax valuation of the property.

FINDING NO. 14

The USPS has not used Section 111 of the NHPA to lease historic properties no longer 

needed for its agency’s purposes.

As noted, Section 111 requires federal agencies to give serious consideration to alternative uses 

for historic properties and authorizes leases of such properties to non-federal entities. Leasing

can provide an income stream to maintain a historic post office while retaining the building in 

public ownership. This approach could offer an effective tool for dealing with excess capacity

while allowing the continued use of the post office for retail operations in a small portion of 

the building.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS should evaluate the viability of leasing historic post offices, or portions 

thereof, in accordance with Section 111 of NHPA as an alternative to disposal.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 46

FINDING NO. 15

The USPS may be placing the murals and artwork in historic post offices at risk when 

disposing of the buildings that house them.

While the USPS indicates its intent to retain ownership of artwork following disposal of

historic buildings, the long-term care and public access often remains in question. The murals 

and artwork within historic post offices are undoubtedly a component of the importance of

the building and hold significant value for the community. The USPS has a responsibility

as steward of historic properties to maintain those features that contribute to the building’s 

significance. Through diminishing financial resources and planned disposals, USPS is putting 

publically funded murals and other works of art in historic post offices at risk for deterioration 

and loss. Further, despite promises made to communities for continued public access, these 

promises have, in some cases, not been realized.

RECOMMENDATION

The USPS should develop language for inclusion in covenants attached to historic 

properties or other legally binding mechanisms that makes an effective commitment 

for the USPS and a binding obligation for the new owner to ensure proper 

maintenance and public access to significant murals and other artwork located within 

historic post offices.

CONCLUSION

Historic post offices in cities and towns across the United States are more than providers of 

mailing services. They are important, often pivotal components of the civic landscape, imbued 

with a long tradition of use and community pride and identity. As the USPS addresses its 

challenges in managing these special resources and seeks realistic solutions to its fi nancial needs, 

it should be mindful of their importance and attempt to see them as the local residents do. 

By fully implementing the Section 106 process and its consultation requirements, the USPS 

can benefit from the assistance of local communities and other stakeholders to plan for the 

future operational needs of the agency and seek sound historic preservation outcomes. It 

should work collaboratively with the ACHP, the major national preservation organizations, 

and local stakeholders to fashion an approach to its historic preservation responsibilities that 

ensures the long-term vitality of its unique historic assets. 
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 47

Agreement Between the General Services Administration and the United States Postal Service 

Covering Real and Personal Property Relationships and Associated Services, July 1985 and 

Letter of Understanding, February 2005.

A Local Official’s Guide to Developing Better Community Post Offices: A project of the 

Vermont League of Cities and Towns, the Preservation Trust of Vermont, and the Vermont 

Division for Historic Preservation. June 2001.

Comm. for Preservation of the Seattle Fed. Reserve Bank Bldg. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of San 

Francisco, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26084 at 19 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 19, 2010)

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Division G. Explanatory Statement.

Department of Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the 

National Register Criteria to Post Offices. Washington, D.C.: 1984. Revised 1994.

Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, As Amended (Pub. L. 152, Ch. 288, 

63 Stat 377).

Government Accountability Office. Report to Congressional Requesters: U.S. Postal Service, 

Mail Processing Realignment Efforts Under Way Need Better Integration and Explanation, 

Washington, DC: June 2007.

House Resolution 466: Supporting a moratorium on the sale of historic post office buildings. 

January 29, 2014.

Inspector General United States Postal Service. 21st Century Post Office: Opportunities to 

Share Excess Resources. Washington, DC: February 9, 2012.

Inspector General United States Postal Service. Accuracy of the Electronic Facilities 

Management System: Audit Report. Washington, DC: September 28, 2012.

Inspector General United States Postal Service. Lessons Learned from Mail Processing 

Network Rationalization Initiatives: Management Advisory Report. Washington, DC: March

27, 2013.

National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 13: How to Apply the National Register 

Criteria to Post Offices. Washington, DC: 1984. Revised 1994.

National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register 

Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, DC: 1990. Revised 1991, 1995, 1997. Revised for Internet 

1995, 2001, 2002.

SOURCES
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 48

National Trust Easement Policy, National Trust for Historic Preservation. Washington, DC: 

January 13, 1976, Amended December 7, 1982 and May 22, 1995.

Postal Regulatory Commission. Rationalization Service Changes, 2012: Advisory Opinion 

on Mail Processing Network Rationalization Service Changes. Washington, DC: September 

28, 2012.

U.S. Postal Service. History of the U.S. Postal Service, 1775-1980. Publications 100,

Washington, DC: April 1981.

U.S. Postal Service. Executive Order 13287: Preserve America, Report to the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation. Washington, DC: September 2008.

U.S. Postal Service. Guide to Real Property Acquisitions and Related Services (Handbook 

RE-1). Washington, DC: August 1996. Updated June 2008.

U.S. Postal Service. Handbook RE-6, Facilities Environmental Handbook. Washington, DC: 

November 2004.

U.S. Postal Service. USPS Nationwide Historic Context Study: Postal Facilities Constructed

or Occupied Between 1940 and 1971. Washington, DC: October 2012.

REGULATIONS

Community Relations Regulations (39 CFR 241.4).

Postal Service Relocation Regulations (39 CFR 777, Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition).

CORRESPONDENCE

Correspondence from Reid Nelson, Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, ACHP 

to Sharon Freiman, Attorney, Procurement and Property Law, USPS, January 10, 2013.

Correspondence from Paul Edmondson, Chief Legal Officer, National Trust for Historic 

Preservation to Sharon Freiman, Attorney, Procurement and Property Law, USPS, February 5, 

2013.

Correspondence from Joseph J. Mulvey, Real Estate Specialist, USPS, to Ruben Diaz, Jr., 

Bronx Borough President, March 14, 2013.

Correspondence from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Post 

Office Collaborate, the City of Berkeley, the California Preservation Foundation, the La Jolla 

Historical Society, and the Los Angeles Conservancy to Angie Mitchell, USPS, February 11, 

2014.

Correspondence from Reid Nelson, Director, Office of Federal Agency Programs, ACHP to 

Sharon Freiman, Chief Counsel, Procurement and Property Law, USPS, February 14, 2014.

Correspondence from Daniel Delahaye, USPS to Reid Nelson, Director, Office of Federal 

Agency Programs, ACHP, February 20, 2014.
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 49

TESTIMONY PROVIDED ON MARCH 11, 2014, OAKLAND, CA

Alameda County Parks, Recreation and Historical Commission, Al Minard

Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Daniella Thompson

Berkeley Design Associates, Jay Claiborne

California Offi ce of Historic Preservation, Carol Roland-Nawi, State Historic Preservation Offi cer

California Preservation Foundation, Cindy Heitzman, Executive Director

Citizens to Save the Berkeley Post Office, Mike Lonergan

City of Berkeley, Tom Bates, Mayor

Living New Deal, Gray Brechin

Los Angeles Conservancy, Adrian Fine, Director of Advocacy

National New Deal Preservation Association, Harvey Smith, Board President

National Post Office Collaborate, Jacqueline McCormack

National Trust for Historic Preservation, Christine Morris, Senior Field Officer

Office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Jonathan Gast

Save the La Jolla Post Office Task Force, Diane Kane

WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE ACHP

Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, Berkeley, CA, (Susan D. Cerny, Corporate Secretary)

Berkeley Design Associates, Berkeley, CA (Anthony Bruzzone, President)

Charleston, Illinois Historic Preservation Commission (Elisa S. Roberts)

Citizens to Save the Berkeley Post Office, Berkeley, CA (Moni T. Law)

Citizens to Save the Berkeley Post Office, Berkeley, CA (Mike Lonergan)

Citizens to Save the Berkeley Post Office, Berkeley, CA (Charlene M. Woodcock)

City of Berkeley, CA (Tom Bates, Mayor)

Historic Neighborhood Preservation Program, Stamford CT

Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology

(SHPO)(Cathy Draeger-Williams, Archaeologist)
 PRESERVING HISTORIC POST OFFICES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS | 50

Kansas Historical Society (SHPO) (Kim Gant, Review and Compliance Coordinator)

Living New Deal, University of California, Berkeley (Gray Brechin)

Los Angeles Conservancy, Los Angeles, CA (Adrian Scott Fine, Director of Advocacy)

National New Deal Preservation Association, Berkeley, CA (Harvey Smith, Board President)

National Post Office Collaborate, Berkeley, CA ( Jacqueline McCormack)

NY State Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, Division of Historic Preservation

(SHPO) (Beth Cumming, Supervisor, Technical Assistance and Compliance Unit)

Northfield Downtown Development Corporation, Northfield, MN (Ross A. Currier, 

Executive Director)

Northfield Historical Society, Northfield, MN (Hayes Scriven, Executive Director)

Restore Oregon (Peggy Moretti, Executive Director)

Save the La Jolla Post Office Task Force, La Jolla, CA (Diane Kane)

Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (SHPO)

(Gregory Griffith, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer)

Donald Adams, Kansas City, MO

Ms. Marcia Caine Edelen, Berkeley, CA

Ms. Simona Miller, Berkeley, CA

Dr. Steve Hutkins, Associate Professor, New York University

(Save the Post Office Founder-Editor)

Michael B. Schwartz, Tucson, AZ

A Roy Smith, West Chester, PA

Ruth Claire Weintraub, Huntington Station, NY
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 803, Washington, DC 20004

Phone: 202-606-8503 • Fax: 202-606-8647

www.achp.gov | www.preserveamerica.gov