the preserve a

report to the 

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION1100 pennsylvania avenue nw, suite 809 • washington, dc 20004phone: 202-606-8503 • fax: 202-606-8647

www.achp.gov
Cover photo (mirror image 

of actual buildings):The renovation and expansion of the United States Courthouse in Erie, Pennsylvania not only melded a historic structure with a contemporary addition in a project that has won architectural merit awards, but also was key to revitalizing and spurring economic development is a deteriorating urban area. (Michael Thomas, Architectural Photography)

the preser

rep

ADVIS

1100 p

in 

a report on f
advisory c

Acknowledgements ........................Acronyms and Abbreviations .........Chairman’s Message .......................Executive Summary .......................Chapter 1: Introduction and BackgChapter 2: Current State of FederaChapter 3: Overview of Agency SeChapter 4: Opportunities to SuppoChapter 5: 2005 Progress Reports .Chapter 6: Findings and RecommeChapter 7: Next Steps ...................Figures: Figure No. 1. Advisory Guidelines  Section 3: Improving  “10 Major QuestionFigure No. 2. Selected Federal Stat Regarding Federal PrFigure No. 3. Chart on Agency UsFigure No. 4. Chart on Agency ApFigure No. 5. Chart on Agency ParFigure No. 6. Graph on Federally OFigure No. 7. Excerpts from 2005  Demonstrate ImprovAppendices: A. Executive Order No. 13287: PrB. Advisory Council on Historic PC. Title 41—Public Contracts and  Subtitle C—Federal Property M Chapter 102—Federal ManageD. Executive Branch Agencies ComE. Federal Agency Websites ..........

An independent Federal agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) promotes the preservation, enhancement, and productive use of our Nation’s historic resources, and advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation policy. It also provides a forum for infl uencing Federal activities, programs, and policies that affect historic properties. In addition, the ACHP has a key role in carrying out the Administration’s Preserve America initiative.

John L. Nau, III, of Houston, Texas, is chairman of the 20-member Council, which is served by a professional staff in Washington, DC. For more information about the ACHP, contact:Advisory Council on Historic Preservation1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 809Washington, DC 20004Phone: 202-606-8503Web site: www.achp.gov
Advisory Guidelines Working Group 

Caroline Alderson, General Services  AdministrationRichard Brooks, Bureau of Land ManagementRobin Burgess, Bureau of Land Management Mike Kaczor, Forest ServiceKen Kumor, National Aeronautics  and Space AdministrationBarbara Little, National Park ServiceCapt. Jay Manick, United States Coast GuardTina Norwood, formerly with  United States Postal ServiceMaureen Sullivan, Department of DefenseDonald Sutherland, Bureau of Indian AffairsJay Thomas, Department of the NavyDallan Wordekemper, United States  Postal ServiceFederal Agency Programs Committee Alan Hantman, Committee ChairmanBernadette Castro, Vice ChairmanDepartment of DefenseDepartment of Transportation

Federal Agency Programs Committee (cont.)General Services AdministrationGerald Peter JemisonJohn G. Williams, IIIJulia KingAdvisory Council on Historic PreservationJohn Fowler, Executive DirectorCharlene Dwin Vaughn  (principal report author)Ron Anzalone, Director,  Offi ce of Preservation InitiativesSharon Conway, Director, Offi ce of  Communication, Education, and OutreachKaren Theimer BrownLaura Henley DeanBruce MilhansRezaur RahmanNational Park ServiceDavid BanksConstance RamirezRichard Waldbauer

ii 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACR

The ACHP wishes to extend its appreciation and thanks to the following individuals and organizations for their time and contributions in assisting the ACHP to implement the provisions of Section 3 of EO 13287: 
EXE

As required by Executive Order No. 13287 “Preserve America”, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation respectfully submits this report to the President on the state of the Federal Government’s historic properties and their contribution to local economic development. We are pleased to report that agencies have made great strides in meeting their Federal stewardship responsibilities in recent years. This report acknowledges that Federal historic properties are not only valuable assets, but also yield economic, social, and cultural benefi ts to communities and the Nation. The issuance of EO 13287 on March 3, 2003, was a momentous occasion in Federal stewardship. With this EO, the most far reaching in over thirty years, the President reaffi rmed the need for Federal agencies to assume a leadership role in the management of historic properties and in setting an example for historic preservation. Federally owned historic properties are important to the economic viability of tribal, State, and local communities, as well as the Federal government. Thus, adding a new dimension to Federal stewardship. Section 3 of EO 13287 requires agencies to assess their historic property inventory and determine their condition and management needs. In addition, agencies are required to review their internal regulations, policies, and procedures for compliance with applicable provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.The response from agencies to this requirement of EO 13287 has been impressive. An analysis of the agency submissions is the basis of the fi ndings and recommendations in this report. Agencies acknowledge that they must continue to inventory, use, and protect their historic properties. Many also indicated that they embrace the opportunity presented by the Preserve America initiative of which EO 13287 is a component, to develop public-private partnerships that support heritage tourism and heritage education, and contribute to the local economy. Through the development of guidance, training, grant incentives, and best practices under the Preserve America initiative, we hope to assist agencies in improving their use of Federal historic properties to support agency missions and to foster community pride and enjoyment. We believe this is an achievable goal, and we look forward to helping agencies as they work to foster understanding and pride in our collective history and fulfi ll its promise to the future. John L. Nau, IIIChairman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation February 15, 2006

Chairman John L. Nau, III, Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE

iv
This is the fi rst triennial report to the President—required under Executive Order (EO) 

No. 13287, “Preserve America”—addressing the state of the Federal Government’s historic properties and their contribution to local economic development. EO 13287, signed by the President on March 3, 2003, reaffi rms 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.” The EO is part of a broader Administration initiative, “Preserve America,” to promote the preservation and productive use of the nation’s heritage assets.Information in this document came primarily from two kinds of reports submitted by real property managing agencies within the Executive Branch pursuant to EO 13287: the 2004 Section 3 baseline reports required by Section 3(a-b), and the 2005 progress reports required by Section 3(c). In October 2003, the ACHP developed advisory guidelines, with the assistance of a working group of Federal real property managing 

agencies, to aid reporting agencies in preparing their initial Section 3 reports. Most agencies followed the ACHP’s advisory guidelines to organize their information, which simplifi ed the task of discerning patterns and trends in how agencies manage historic properties in the 21st century. In coordination with the Secretary of the Interior, represented by the National Park Service (NPS), the ACHP reviewed the initial Section 3 reports and the progress reports. A total of 35 agencies—the 33 Federal agencies that manage real property and 2 that do not own or manage Federal property—submitted reports by the September 30, 2004, deadline for the initial report. Two-thirds of these agencies submitted progress reports by the September 30, 2005, deadline. The initial reports helped identify the following:

• the status of each agency’s inventory of 

historic properties;

• the general condition and management 

needs of such properties and steps underway to meet those defi ned management needs;

• the suitability of the agency’s types of 

properties for contributing to community economic development initiatives, including heritage tourism;

• agency regulations, manageme

and operating procedures that comply with the requirements 110 and 111 of the National HPreservation Act (NHPA); and

• the need to revise agency regu

management policies, and opedures to bring them into comSections 110 and 111 of the N

Although the reports varied in preselength, all responding agencies provhensive information and insightful, sessments of their historic preservatand their management strategies for with historic properties in their carerevealed the following 10 patterns a

1. All agencies have some form 

of historic properties, but thnecessarily include all potenproperty types.

2. Agencies use differing termi

referring to historic propert

3. Historic properties are evalu

mine their eligibility for listintional Register of Historic Plis not necessarily followed up nomination to the National 

4. Many agencies do not have 

professionals that routinely general condition of historic 

5. One-third of agencies have 

cifi c internal procedures to Section 110 of the NHPA, Federal agencies to establish hensive framework for progout national preservation poto Federal stewardship.

6. Only fi ve agencies have inte

cedures to implement Sectiothe NHPA, which allows thGovernment to make historavailable through leases, exccooperative agreements with non-Federal entities. 

2 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
chapter 1 INT

The reports also illustrated how agencies were supporting the Preserve America initiative. The reports described creative actions such as outleasing unneeded properties, fi nding uses for underutilized buildings, forming public-private partnerships, taking actions to complement and support local heritage tourism programs, and giving priority to Preserve America communities 

applying for Federal grants. The state of Federal historic property management can be summarized as improving but in need of greater agency commitment and more oversight by the Administration. Many may assume that additional funding or property disposal would alleviate all of an agency’s management challenges related to historic property stewardship, but that is not the conclusion of this report. Instead, the report suggests that concurrent with efforts to improve the asset and Federal property management system, the Federal Government needs to develop an ethic that considers the preservation and use of agency historic properties from the broader perspective of public benefi ts. Accordingly, the fi ndings and recommendations outlined in the report are intended to assist agencies in taking appropriate measures to meet their stewardship obligations while recognizing the potential for historic properties in their inventory to be a catalyst for community development. 

The six major fi ndings of the report can be summarized as follows: 

1. Real property managing agencies with 

large inventories need comprehensive knowledge of the historic property assets they manage.

2. Strategic plans prepared by real property 

managing agencies should recognize and address historic property management needs in the development of business plans, facilities management activities, and capital improvement plans and projects.

3. Agencies should review staffi ng and 

funding priorities for their historic preservation programs in order meet the goals of the NHPA and EO 13287.

4. Agency-specifi c directives and guidance 

are needed to implement the Administration’s policies regarding public-private partnerships for managing Federal historic properties in ways that support agency missions and foster local economic development.

5. Agencies need to adopt internal procedures that ensure timely consideration 

of alternative uses of historic properties declared excess to an agency’s mission.

6. Greater oversight is needed to ensure 

that agencies fulfi ll their stewardship responsibilities, including assessing the suitability and availability of Federal historic properties for local economic development initiatives. 

The recommendations accompanying the fi ndings offer a range of actions by which Federal property management agencies, the ACHP, and the Administration can fulfi ll the goals of EO 13287 and the NHPA. The ACHP is committed to moving forward with these recommendations so that future actions proposed by the Administration and agencies recognize historic properties as important public assets that are worthy of full consideration in Federal property and asset management.

4

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

executive summary

John L. Nau, III, Chairman, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, addresses Federal agency policy offi cials in the Indian Treaty Room of the Eisenhower Executive Offi ce Building, part of the White House complex. (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation)
Executive Order No. 13287, “Preserve 

America,” issued on March 3, 2003, was a defi ning moment in the Federal stewardship of historic property. Rather than continuing to consider all real property holdings in a similar manner, agencies were required to recognize that Federal historic properties are valuable assets that can support agency missions and also stimulate local economic development. Agencies have long acknowledged that their real property inventory generally includes historic properties1 that are important to the 

nation as well as the agency. Nevertheless, each agency approaches its oversight and management of historic properties differently based upon budgetary, program, and management considerations. While many agencies have made the preservation and protection of historic properties a priority, others face daunting challenges given the sheer volume of their historic property inventory and recent changes in agency mission. In order to better fulfi ll their stewardship responsibilities, agencies have been required 

to consider historic properties as assets that must be cared for in a manner that refl ects the broader public interest. To that end, EO 13287 requires agencies to explore partnerships for sustaining the long-term preservation and productive use of such properties. Specifi cally, the EO, which applies to executive branch agencies and departments, encourages agencies to foster viable partnerships with tribal, State, and local heritage tourism programs for the use of historic properties. The requirement that executive branch agencies inventory, protect, and use historic properties in a sound and practical manner was initially set forth in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966. Section 2 of the NHPA states the following: 

It shall be the policy of the Federal Government, in partnership with other nations and in partnership with States, local governments, Indian tribes, and private organizations, and individuals to:...(3) administer federally owned, administered, or controlled prehistoric and historic resources in a spirit of stewardship for the inspiration and benefi t of present and future generations....

EO 11593, “Protection and Enhanthe Cultural Environment,” issued clarifi ed Federal inventory and evalrequirements and set a two-year timthe completion of such inventoriesquent amendments to the NHPA i1992 codifi ed the requirements of Section 110 and expanded the respof Federal real property managing aspecifying the actions that agencies demonstrate leadership in historic pand responsible stewardship. Sectiodirects each Federal agency to “estaconsultation with the Secretary [of a preservation program for the idenevaluation, and nomination to the Register of Historic Places, and prohistoric properties.” This provision benchmarks for an agency programing the requirements to maintain ahistoric properties in a way that conpreservation of their historic, archearchitectural values; to carry out agervation-related activities in consulother Federal, State, and local agentribes, Native Hawaiian organizatioprivate sector; and to give full consplanning for the preservation of hities not under the direct jurisdictioof the agency, but subject to effects actions. Section 110, therefore, sets work for how an agency should carhistoric preservation responsibilitiethe stewardship of its historic propeAs of 2000, it was estimated that tGovernment owns, manages, and aters more than 665 million acres o430,000 buildings comprising app2.9 billion square feet.2 Unfortuna

showing the actual percentage or nof properties within this universe tthe NHPA defi nition of historic prunavailable or unreliable because ause varying standards and terms fohistoric properties. 

6 

1 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. (Section 301(5)) Historic property or historic properties means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource. 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
ACHP’s 2001 report, Caring for the Past, 

Managing for the Future: Federal Stewardship and America’s Historic Legacy.3 The most 

notable recommendation of the report was that agencies needed to be more accountable for their historic properties. Issuance of an EO was another major recommendation of that report. The policy set forth in Section 1 of EO 13287 reaffi rms the major principles in the NHPA. It states the following: 

It is the policy of the Federal Government to provide 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. The Federal Government shall recognize and manage the historic properties in its ownership as assets that can support the department and agency missions while contributing to the vitality of the economic well being of the Nation’s communities and fostering broader appreciation for the development of the United States and its underlying values....

Section 2 of the EO focuses on the need for agencies to build preservation partnerships that are consistent with agency missions and governing authorities. This provision calls for the following:

Each agency shall examine its policies, procedures, and capabilities to ensure that its actions encourage, support, and foster public-private initiatives and investment in the use, reuse, and rehabilitation of historic properties, to the extent such support is not inconsistent with other provisions of law, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology and Preservation, and essential national department and agency mission requirements.

Section 3 of the EO establishes an accountability system to gauge agency implementation of the mandates of the NHPA and the EO. It requires the ACHP to prepare a report to the President on the current state of the Federal Government’s historic properties and their contribution to local economic development. The report is to incorporate data submitted by real property managing agencies in accordance with Sections 3(a), (b), and (c) of the EO. Sections 3(a) and (b) called for agency reports by September 30, 2004, that would include an assessment of the agency’s historic property inventory and a summary of the status and effectiveness of its current historic preservation program. Specifi cally, each agency was asked to 

submit to the ACHP and to the Sethe Interior an assessment of the fo

• the status of its inventory of 

historic properties;

• the general condition and man

needs of such properties and sderway to meet the managem

• the suitability of the agency’s t

properties to contribute to comnity economic development inincluding heritage tourism;

• agency regulations, manageme

cies, and operating procedures ply with the requirements in S110 and 111 of the NHPA; an

• the need to revise agency regul

management policies, and opecedures to bring them into comwith Sections 110 and 111 of t

The Section 3 reports established a the status of agency historic propertories and their stewardship prograprovided agencies the opportunity successes and impediments to their of historic properties and their collwith tribal, State, and local governthe private sector. Section 3(c) requires agencies to susubsequent progress reports to the Athe Secretary of Interior. It further ACHP to submit to the President treport on Federal stewardship and properties. Section 3(c) states the fo

Each agency with real property maresponsibilities shall, by September and every third year thereafter, preport on its progress in identifying, pand using historic properties in its and make the report available to tand the Secretary of Interior. The shall incorporate this data into a rthe state of the Federal Governmen

8 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

chapter 1 introd

The Apollo Unifi ed S-Band System antenna provided communications for the historic Apollo space fl ights that took the United States—and humankind—to the moon. Goldstone, California (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

3 ACHP, March 2001, Caring for the Past, Managing for the Future: Federal Stewardship and America’s Historic Legacy, page 7 (Washington, D.C.). 
This report is submitted at a time when other 

asset management and Federal real property management initiatives are underway in the executive branch, including the December 2005 submission of asset management plans in accordance with EO 13327, “Federal Real Property Management.” Agencies are required to incorporate in the EO 13327 asset management plans, “planning and management requirements for historic properties under EO 13287.” The fi ndings and recommendations of the ACHP’s Report to the President should be considered in conjunction with the Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) review of the asset management plans. The Section 3 reports submitted to the ACHP and Secretary of Interior in 2004 and 2005 afforded agency offi cials the opportunity to explain their historic preservation programs and their approach to stewardship of historic properties. Agencies were allowed to use their existing information gathering and reporting systems to prepare the reports. They also had the option of using advisory guidelines drafted by the ACHP in October 2003 following its collaboration with a working group comprising real property managing agency offi cials.5

The advisory guidelines, which the majority of agencies used, presented a framework for agencies to consider the areas and issues that were to be assessed and reported on. Ten major questions were posed to agencies in the guidelines to assist them in responding to the assessments required by the EO. Providing the agencies with uniform questions that addressed particular areas and issues helped the ACHP and Secretary of Interior to discern patterns and trends while reviewing the reports. (See Figure 1)

Although the 2004 Section 3 reports are considered baseline information from which future agency progress would be measured, the reports do not emphasize quantitative data, which the advisory guidelines working group did not believe would be readily available. Instead, each agency was encouraged to tell its own story about historic preservation by providing an overview of how the agency identifi es, protects, manages, and uses historic properties. In addition, each agency was asked to describe those internal policies that allowed it to support independently, or as part of a partnership, the use of Federal properties in local economic development initiatives, particularly heritage tourism. The progress reports due September 30, 2005, were submitted only by those agencies that fi rst reported in 2004. The 2005 reports assessed how the agency improved its efforts to identify, protect, and use historic properties since the initial Section 3 report. Because there was only one year between reports, agencies stated that major changes were limited, but some had made progress with the development of action plans and proposals for improving their preservation programs. In the 2005 progress reports, agencies clarifi ed and expanded upon information submitted in 2004, including public-private 

partnerships and linkages between programs and the Preserve America Thus, the primary benefi t to the ADepartment of the Interior (DOI) progress reports was learning the apagencies were taking to review interpreservation policies and proceduremake needed modifi cations to bettwith Sections 110 and 111 of the NEO 13287.

10 

5 The Advisory Guidelines Working Group was composed of the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, General Services Administration, Department of Defense, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Navy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Postal Service, and United States Coast Guard.

10 ma

preparing 

1. What types of historic pro

information collected and 

2. How would you characte

properties? 

3. What reporting mechanis

resource management res

4. Does your agency coordin

its ownership or control wmanagement reporting? 

5. How is your agency fulfi l

Section 110 of the NHPA

6. How is your agency comp

properties are transferred, 

7. If your agency does not c

for complying with Sectiothese statutory requireme

8. What issues regarding you

of historic properties, or uability to contribute to co

9. Does your agency have pr

preservation opportunitie

10. How would your agency 

management and stewardSection 3 Report? 

Figure 1: Advisory GuideSection 3: Improving Fed

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory 

chapter 1 introd

Clover Hill Tavern, a historic stagecoach stop dating from 1819, is among the oldest extant buildings at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park, the preserved location where the Civil War effectively ended when General Lee surrendered to General Grant in April 1865. Appomattox, Virginia(National Park Service)
meet other policy goals of the EO. In this context, the ACHP has identifi ed creative strategies 

and partnership opportunities to improve the use of Federal historic properties for local community economic development, heritage tourism, educational outreach, and job creation. A recent ACHP publication, Becoming Better Stewards of Our Past,7 required by Section 4(e) of EO 

13287, included recommendations to Federal agencies regarding opportunities to enhance the Federal management of historic properties. This information has been shared with agency heads, local communities, stakeholders, and the public to stimulate conversation among them regarding future opportunities. 

The specifi c recommendations in this report offer concrete principles for advancing the stewardship of Federal historic properties. The recommendations correspond to specifi c fi ndings and identify the responsible parties to implement the suggested actions. A consistent theme running through the recommendations is the need for interagency collaboration, information exchange, and partnerships. Only through ongoing discussions, sharing of best practices, and consistent and structured oversight will agencies effectively pursue government-wide and department-wide policies and procedures that promote effi ciency, creativity, and initiative in Federal stewardship of historic properties in the 21st century.

12

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 1

At Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, this old wagon is among the remains of Sod House Ranch, a largely intact 1870s-era ranch notable for its huge landholdings and importance in east Oregon’s settlement history. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

7 ACHP, March 2004, Becoming Better Stewards of Our Past (Washington, D.C.).

chapter 2

CURFED
The state of Federal historic property management can be summarized as improving, 

but in need of greater agency commitment and greater oversight and coordination. This conclusion is an acknowledgement, shared by several agencies, that only incremental improvements have been made in the last fi ve years since the publication of the ACHP 2001 report, Caring for the Past, Managing for the Future: Federal Stewardship and America’s Historic Legacy. Given the scope and magnitude of fi nancial, programmatic, and management challenges associated with Federal real property in the 1990s, particularly the increased maintenance and operating costs, it was critical that agencies improve their property management systems and become more accountable for their actions. These needs were highlighted in published reports from the Government Accountability Offi ce, Congressional oversight hearings, symposia, and conferences on Federal property, assets, and facilities management. The knowledge and experience of Federal offi cials, as well as private-sector corporate experience with facilities management, contributed to the understanding of the challenges. In addition, there has been ongoing dialogue with academia and the National Research Council 

has assisted Federal, State, and local offi cials 

in framing the issues and developing recommendations and implementation strategies for the future. 

Encouraging Recent Improvements The Administration has taken fi ve major actions since 2003 that should result in major improvements in Federal stewardship of historic properties. The fi rst was the decision by the Federal Accounting Standards Board (FASAB) to recategorize the reporting of heritage assets and stewardship and make it a mandatory reporting requirement to comply with the Chief Financial Offi cers Act of 1990.8 The second action was the addition of a Federal Property Asset Management 

Initiative to the President’s Management Agenda in 2004. Third was the President’s issuance of EO 13327, “Federal Real Property Asset Management,” in February 2004. This EO is designed to improve government-wide Federal property management through the designation of a Senior Real Property Offi cer for each agency that manages real property 

and the creation of the Federal RCouncil (FRPC) overseen by OMFRPC operates with four standintees—asset management plans, inperformance measures, and systemwhich is responsible for implemesions in EO 13327. The fourth mwas the issuance of the Federal MRegulation, the successor to the FProperty Management Regulationon November 8, 2005, which incprehensive up-to-date provisions aspects of property management. Administration advanced legislatipassed by Congress that grants auselect property managing agencieenhanced-used lease agreements aof the proceeds to assist the agencing out their stewardship responsWhile all of these actions are signaddition of the Federal Property Aagement Initiative to the Presidenment Agenda has had the most imand far-reaching effects on real prresult of this directive, the agenciand manage real property followeissued by the FRPC on October 2to improve their awareness of thecluding historic properties. Furthby F. Joseph Moravec, former comof the General Services AdministrPublic Buildings Service, when thwas issued to agencies, they serve commandments” of property managencies that need to improve themance. They call for each agency all of its assets, get rid of unneedeand implement asset managemenAlthough many of these requiremother regulations, EOs, and direccies took notice of their importanFRPC, with the support of OMBthat these requirements would be upon which their performance wpublicly scored each quarter. 

14 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

CURRENT STATE OF FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP

8 The Chief Financial Offi cers Act of 1990 established the role of the Offi ce of Management and Budget in directing Federal fi nancial management, modernizing overall fi nancial management systems, and improving fi nancial reporting. The Act established in all major agencies a Chief Financial Offi cer responsible for establishing an annual fi nancial statement and accompanying report. 
the information tends not to be up

to refl ect new properties or changeing in a property’s loss of integrityhave continued to lag in the establcomprehensive databases of historties, even though technological admade the task easier and more cosAccordingly, information prepared staff is not always readily available from headquarters. Some agencies the same methodology or informainternally to assemble data, which mises the information-sharing proto effective decision-making regardstewardship of historic properties. agencies recognize the need to impgathering and to use new technolocommitment of resources for such still lagging. In accordance with EO 13327, Feagencies are responsible for collecmandatory data elements at the asthat will be included in a database by GSA’s Offi ce of Government-wHistoric properties are one of the tory data elements that assist with management of Federal properties tablishment of a comprehensive gwide database. Although the databnot be a complete list of all types properties, it can be used along wgovernment-wide reporting systemthe Department of Interior’s Fedeogy Program (FAP) Report to CoIn addition to the historic propertimandatory data elements to be colagencies that are directly related to stewardship include use, condition sion dependency, and replacement this database is populated, GSA withis useful tool to provide the Admwith uniform and updated informing real property activities within eing agency. One point of concern, 

16 

advisory c

case study current st

Relocation and Adaptive 

Reuse of Building 51 at 

Newark International Airport

Elizabeth, New Jersey

Department of Transportation

Newark International Airport’s Building 51 (built about 1935), also known as the Airport Administration Building, was the hangout of early aviation pioneers such as Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earhart. Constructed adjacent to the world’s fi rst paved runway, it housed the world’s fi rst airport traffi c control 

tower and the nation’s fi rst airport hotel/restaurant, and was the site of the nation’s fi rst airport weather bureau. Building 51 is on the National Register and the New Jersey Register of Historic Places and is a designated historic architectural landmark.Over time the building was enlarged as an airpassenger facility, later as a medical clinic and U.S. Post Offi ce handling facility, and fi nally as the site of a National Weather Service offi ce. The building was also physically modifi ed and suffered some deterioration. Then, because of its location in the runway 

protection zone, where people may not congregate due to safety restrictions, Building 51 became inaccessible to the general public. As a result, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the airport sponsor, proposed to relocate Building 51, construct an addition to the relocated building that incorporated it into the plans of the new administration building, and fully restore it for use by the Port Authority and the public.All of the relocation and reconstruction work was accomplished in just 18 months. The building is now fully restored to its original splendor and is accessible to the general public for the fi rst time in decades.

Dedicated by Amelia Earhart in 1935, the historic art deco Building 51 was moved out of the way of runway expansion and incorporated into the new terminal, where it continues to both serve present needs and educate persons about their nation’s past. Newark International Airport, Elizabeth, New Jersey (Federal Aviation Administration)

Before

After
have not assessed the value of these resources 

beyond what they cost to build. Consequently, the dollar value is rarely accurately depicted in reports and studies.The Section 3 baseline reports included a number of stories where an agency has determined a greater value for a historic property based upon intangible elements such as the prestige of living in a unique historic property. As agencies are successful in securing a good fi -nancial return from the lease, sale, or transfer of historic properties within the historic property inventory, these experiences motivate agency offi cials to be more diligent in completing inventories and securing accurate appraisals. Limited resources to support historic property identifi cation, condition assessments, maintenance, and capital improvements projects. Since the passage of the NHPA, agencies have often found it diffi cult to commit adequate and sustained funding for historic preservation that is not related to Section 106 compliance activities. Funding that is allocated is often later shifted to other agency program priorities, leaving agencies in a “catch up” mode in future years with regard to historic preservation needs. Property identifi cation efforts within agencies are also hindered due to limited professional staff to carry out work in-house. While the number of qualifi ed preservation professionals on Federal payrolls has certainly increased over the past decade, they often have multiple duties so that work plans for identifi -cation cannot be implemented. There is also a proclivity among qualifi ed preservation professionals to focus more on the predominant type of historic property owned by the agency than on all types of property.Condition assessments, critical to the stewardship of historic properties, are also conducted by agencies in an uneven and often ad hoc manner. Some agencies have indicated that not only is there limited funding to carry out this 

task but also that data used to direct this effort may be inaccurate. An exception to this practice is GSA, which has required its Regional Offi ces to develop Building Preservation Plans (BPP) for all historic properties that establish the historic signifi cance, condition of materials, 

importance of spatial zones, and the priorities for maintenance and rehabilitation. Thus, the facilities manager has baseline information from which changes to a building can be tracked and needs addressed in budget requests. When developed in the 1990s, the BPP was a major technological advance that could be used as a prototype by other agencies. GSA continues to share the success of this tool in its publications on historic properties.10 Additionally, GSA is committed to ongoing education 

and outreach to executive branch agencies that own and manage historic properties and has attempted to impress upon all the need for baseline and follow-up condition assessments.Due to lack of information regarding the historic property inventory, inadequate condition assessments, and poorly documented statements of signifi cance, properties become prime candidates for deferred maintenance. Previous GAO reports cited particular agencies that had substantial backlogs of deferred maintenance, which resulted in substantial loss of revenue to the agency.11 Since the 

issuance of the GAO report High Risk Series: Federal Real Property in 2003,12 the incidence 

of deferred maintenance, particularly of properties that did not support agency missions, has resulted in a number of buildings having to be demolished because they present a threat to the health and safety of employees or the community. Further, lack of timely maintenance has caused buildings to lose their 

18 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 2 

10 GSA Public Building Service, 1999, “Held in Public Trust” (Washington, D.C.); GSA Public Building Service, 2004, Extending the Legacy: GSA Historic Building Stewardship (Washington, D.C.). 11 U.S. General Accounting Offi ce, January 2003, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property (Washington, D.C.).12 Ibid.

Dexter Cab

Int

San Isabe

De

The Interlaken Resort, located nColorado, was constructed in 18remote recreational gateway for atravelers visiting nearby mining cThe resort was later bought by JaDexter in 1883 and expanded duperiod 1881–1895. Dexter’s privconstructed in the mid-1890s to nautical background, complete wenclosed cupola. Sadly, the resort favor shortly after the turn of the Eventually nearly all the buildingabandoned and began to deterio

Volunteers work tand update the hCabin, part of the Interlaken Resort19th century resoserves new genevisitors and genein the process. SaNational Forest, C(Department of A
integrity and historic designation. Regrettably, 

National Historic Landmarks have suffered, as have buildings of local signifi cance, bringing increased public awareness of poor stewardship practices in the Federal Government. Authorities such as Section 111 of the NHPA provide agencies with a mechanism to channel proceeds from the lease, transfer, or exchanges of historic properties into preservation activities related to that building or others. Rarely has this authority been used, however, to fund a comprehensive and systematic program for maintenance and rehabilitation. Efforts are being made by GSA and the ACHP to share success stories to encourage broader use of these provisions. Legislation for specifi c agency programs has recently been enacted to earmark proceeds of an agency’s disposal of properties back into the agency’s budget and programs.13 Since such 

programs have only recently been established, there is limited evidence of their success at protecting and facilitating the reuse of historic buildings, but this concept is promising. 

Existence of multiple regulations and directives regarding the management of historic properties. The management of historic properties is subject to a variety of laws that deal with property management, stewardship, environmental issues, and historic preservation. In the ACHP’s 2001 report, Caring for the Past: Managing for the Future, one of the 12 fi ndings 

states the following:

The legal framework for Federal stewardship and historic resources is comprehensive, and there are numerous statutes addressing Government-wide responsibilities, as well as targeted agency resource management. Periodic oversight occurs through the appropriations process or congressional program 

reauthorization, supplemented with General Accounting Offi ce studies. Most of these mandates, however, are self-policing. There is little accountability and few incentives through established performance standards, regular program monitoring, or reporting for meeting requirements.

This assessment explains why agencies have not fulfi lled many of the mandates that would promote historic property stewardship. In fact, when asked how they coordinate many of these responsibilities, many agency offi cials are unaware of those responsibilities established more than fi ve years ago. Accordingly, adherence to these rules is compromised without agency procedures that reaffi rm their applicability 

and establish accountability and performance measures. (See Figure 2).

The absence of complete and readily available information on Federal property management laws and regulations contributes to this problem. Many of the laws reinforce each other and collectively provide a blueprint for how to identify historic properties, how to use them for agency mission or other efforts that support Federal agencies and the community, the benefi t of public-private partnerships, and the need to develop management practices that preserve a cultural and historic asset for the nation. The challenge is bringing the relevant information to the Federal property manager. 

Lack of agency experience and guidance on creative strategies for using historic properties to support agency missions. One of the 

major dilemmas for Federal agencies is how to use functionally obsolete, vacant, or underutilized buildings or sites for changing agency missions. Not only are offi cials daunted by the operational and structural issues, but also they must confront remediation concerns related to the existence of hazardous materials found in older buildings and sites previously exposed to contaminants. While an agency 

20 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

chapter 2 current st

13 Forest Service: Facility Realignment Enhancement Act, PL 109-54, 119 Stat. 499; Department of Veterans Affairs: Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES), PL 108-422, 118 Stat. 2379. 

executive ordEO 11593 (1971), “ProtectioEO 13006 (1996), “Locating 

the Nation’s Central Cities”

EO 13327 (2004), “Federal RstatutesAntiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. 43Historic Sites Act, 16 U.S.C. 4Federal Property and AdminisReservoir Salvage Act, 16 U.SNational Historic Preservation National Environmental PolicAn Act to Facilitate the Preser

40 U.S.C. 550(h)

Historical and Archeological DPublic Buildings Cooperative American Indian Religious FrArcheological Resources ProteArchitectural Barriers Act, 42 Americans with Disabilities AMcKinney-Vento Homeless ANative American Graves ProteregulationsProtection of Historic PropertCuration of Federally Owned 

36 C.F.R. part 79

Real Estate Acquisition, 41 CReal Property Disposal, 41 C.Historic Preservation, 41 C.F.Assignment and Utilization of guidelinesSection 110 Guidelines: The S

Federal Agency Historic PrePreservation Act, 63 Fed. R

Figure 2: Selected FederaRegarding Federal Prope
may believe that an industrial building can be 

adapted for administrative services, problems may arise with having to spend agency funds to abate lead, asbestos, and other contaminants. Cost as well as the challenge of developing a design or treatment that meets both Federal health standards and preservation guidelines become considerations.Information has not been readily available to Federal property managers on best practices for the retention and reuse of properties for agency missions using creative management and funding strategies. When dealing with Federal property management issues, many agency offi cials do not consult with stakeholders or other agencies and the full range of alternative uses is not explored. In those instances where an agency has collaborated with other stakeholders, including GSA (which is the government’s technical expert on reusing historic buildings), tribal, State, and local governments and the private sector, successful outcomes have been achieved, aided by the broader expertise brought to the table. An example of an agency that regularly has successful collaborations is GSA. Typically, GSA consults with Federal tenants and local government representatives when determining how to provide space in historic buildings such as courthouses and customhouses. It is not unusual for the agency to reach a compromise that allows retention and continued use of the historic building while additional space is located in adjacent buildings or created by expansion of the existing historic property. The commitment to exploring creative strategies to protect and use underutilized or excess properties results in a better performing asset as well as continued use of a signifi cant historic property. 

As agencies include staff from various program areas in the analysis of alternatives, the exchange of information is often enlightening and leads to successful compromise. For instance, a facilities manager focused on operations and maintenance can meet with the cultural resources staff to learn about contemporary standards for rehabilitation that preserve signifi cant historic features while adapting the building for the agency’s mission. Likewise, budget offi cers may learn about the potential revenue that can be generated from outleasing an agency property from a program manager who is aware of public-private partnerships and the ability to use such arrangements to bring contractors on-site or in proximity to the agency’s operations. Public-private partnerships, as a concept, are embraced in many agencies. However, no government-wide standard or guidance currently exists that advises agencies how these arrangements should be approached. GAO noted in the 1999 report it prepared on public-private partnerships, “government-wide management reforms as well as fi scal and community pressures were among the factors that led agencies to seek ways to better manage their properties including the formation of partnerships with the private sector.”14 Many agencies including 

GSA recognize that the government would benefi t from alliances with the private sector, since this would be an opportunity to secure additional funding for the repair, rehabilitation, and maintenance of historic properties. In addition, such arrangements can help agencies meet performance measures and keep projects within established budgets. 

22

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 2

14 GAO, February 1999, Public-Private Partnerships (Washington, D.C.). 

T

D

Note: This case study is taken from the Department of Defense baseline report, accordance with EO 13287, Section 3One of the most recognized buthe world is the DoD headquarPentagon, located on a 280-acre Arlington, Virginia. This recognfrom its distinctive art deco-insunusual fi ve-sided confi gurationinternational association with thStates military. The DepartmenInterior added the Pentagon to Register of Historic Places and a Historic Landmark in 1992. 
24

chapter 3

OVESEC

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 2

Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, consulting parties examine Payne Spring meadow, a property of traditional religious and cultural signifi cance to the Pit River Tribe. Medicine Lake Highlands, California. (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation)
The implementation of Section 3 of EO 13287 

required the ACHP and the Secretary of Interior to develop procedures that would allow agencies with real property management responsibilities to conduct a comprehensive assessment of their historic property inventory and historic preservation programs. Accordingly, the ACHP, in coordination with an interagency working group, developed advisory guidelines to ensure that each reporting agency subject to the requirements of the EO would provide consistent information on the following: 

• the status of its inventory of historic 

properties;

• the general condition and management 

needs of such properties and steps underway to meet the management needs;

• the suitability of the agency’s types of 

properties to contribute to community economic development initiatives, including heritage tourism;

• agency regulations, management policies, 

and operating procedures that comply with the requirements in Sections 110 and 111 of the NHPA; and

• the need to revise agency regulations, 

management policies, and operating procedures to bring them into compliance with Sections 110 and 111 of the NHPA. 

The advisory guidelines were structured to allow agencies “to tell their historic preservation story” by responding to 10 major questions (See Figure 1, page 11) that further interpreted the reporting requirements set forth in Section 3(a) and (b) of the EO. Each of the major questions included a set of related questions to assist the agency in explaining how they approached the task on which they needed to report. The information requested from the agencies was not intended to focus on quantitative data since it was unclear how many agencies actually had quantitative reporting systems in place. Consequently, the reports are qualitative and focus on who, what, when, where, and how to explain an agency’s approach to documenting its inventory, assessing conditions and management needs, determining the suitability of properties for local economic development initiatives, and complying with NHPA requirements. The ACHP and DOI considered the initial Section 3 reports to serve as baseline information from which future agency progress could be measured. Of the 35 agencies that submitted reports, 23 agencies adhered to the advisory guidelines. The reports ranged in size from 2 pages to a 143-page bound publication from 

GSA, Extending the Legacy: GSA Building Stewardship.15 Many re

prepared in-house by agency stafsome were prepared under contrcultural resource fi rms whose serprocured specifi cally to assist the complying with this reporting reSome of the larger departments wexecutive branch (such as the DeAgriculture and Department of Iinclude multiple agencies with dsions and a variety of historic prohad each bureau or agency submreport. This was a useful approacous agencies within a departmendifferent databases, information procedures, and management prhistoric properties. (See Figure 3)The FRPC, created under EO 1required agencies to submit infothe historic properties in their dit can be included in a comprehernment-wide inventory. For thothat do not include public domathis will be a helpful tool for colmore uniform data that can be uSection 3 reports and for updatiproperty inventories. 

26 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

OVERVIEW OF AGENCY SECTION 3 REPORTS

Èx°Ç

Î{°Ó ̄

Figure 3: Agency use of ACHP advisory guidelines

Follow Guidelines

DG
Vanishing 

of t

Grou

Note: This case study is taken from the NPS baseline report submitted in accowith EO 13287, Section 3.In 1998, the NPS launched thTreasures Initiative to address sthreats to the existence of irrepprehistoric and historic ruins in parks in the southwestern UnitProjects range from conducting assessments to documentation interpretation. To date, the NPcommitted nearly $8.7 million 78 high-priority projects in 30 hire 56 preservation specialists under the Vanishing Treasures 

Vanishing Treasworker treating 700-year-old waPueblo, El MorrMonument, New (National Park S

available, only smaller agencies had completed inventories, with even those in need of updating. Further, many agencies were unclear whether their inventories included all types of historic properties, including archeological sites and properties to which Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians attach religious or cultural signifi cance. 

2. A number of agencies used different terminology to reference historic 

properties. This made it diffi cult to 

determine whether agency historic property inventories were exclusively listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, or comprised a more diverse mix of properties defi ned as heritage assets and cultural resources. 

3. Thirty of the 33 agencies indicated that 

they evaluate historic properties included in their inventory to determine eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, but less than half had internal policies for the next step, formal nomination for listing. (See Figure 4). 

4. Approximately half of the 33 reporting 

agencies reported they have qualifi ed 

professionals who routinely monitor the conditions of historic properties and develop management plans for short- and long-term maintenance.

5. Only 11 agencies reported that they 

have established internal procedures and directives to implement a historic preservation program in accordance with Section 110 of the NHPA.

6. Five agencies have developed agency 

procedures to comply with Section 111 of the NHPA that addresses leases and exchanges of Federal historic properties.

7. Approximately half of the Federal 

Preservation Offi cers have other duties within the agency in addition to coordinating the historic preservation program, reducing the time available to deal with historic preservation matters.

8. Twelve agencies indicated that stakeholders such as local governments and 

Indian tribes are not involved in either planning or management decisions related to historic properties.

9. Nineteen agencies indicated that they 

have security and restricted access issues that to a greater or lesser extent preclude the use of their properties to support economic development initiatives, including heritage tourism.

10. Twenty-three agencies have partnership arrangements with Federal and 

non-Federal entities to manage and operate Federal historic properties. However, none of the agencies indicated that they have internal 

28

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 3 





Figure 4: Agency application of National register criteria

Apply Criteria

Do Not Apply Criteria
chapter 4

OPPLOC

procedures to help determine the appropriate use of Federal properties to support local economic development initiatives. (See Figure 5).

In summary, the patterns and trends revealed that agencies have made varied progress but still have much to do to meet their NHPA obligations. They are particularly in need of training and guidance on many aspects of Sections 110 and 111 of the NHPA. Agencies also need a better understanding of how they can support the goals of the Preserve America

initiative by using Federal properties in a manner that is mutually benefi cial to the agency and the local communities. 

The initial Section 3 reports were prepared with the knowledge that Federal property management, including the stewardship of historic properties, is a priority for both the executive and legislative branches. Since the management of these resources has a direct bearing on the agency’s assets and fi scal soundness, learning how the management and operations costs of historic properties affect agency budgets is essential. Specifi cally, the information presented in the Section 3 reports should enable agencies to inform OMB about the present inventory of historic properties, the condition and value of such properties, how these properties affect facilities management and operations, the capacity for properties to continue to support the agency mission, and the opportunity to reuse excess and surplus properties in a different manner or to support local economic development initiatives, particularly heritage tourism. While a number of agencies possess substantial real property that is excess and surplus to agency mission and should be sold or otherwise disposed of, historic properties have intangible value that needs to be addressed using different economic models. The Section 3 reports establish that while agencies have a good sense of how historic properties may fi t into their overall mission, additional analyses on the cost of historic preservation is needed before agencies are willing to make long-term commitments regarding the reuse or rehabilitation of historic properties. 

30

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 3





Figure 5: Agency partnerships

Engage inPartnerships

Do Not Engagein Partnerships
EO 13287 has resulted in agencies documenting and sharing via the Internet and 

publications noteworthy examples of projects that enabled them to be better and more responsible stewards of historic properties. Some of these projects have been the work of the agency alone, but most have been accomplished through partnership arrangements with other Federal agencies or non-Federal entities. Federal funding for the management of historic properties has been leveraged 

with private investments, non-Federal grants, lease arrangements, and volunteer efforts. “At risk” properties that might have otherwise been demolished or mothballed indefi nitely 

found new uses that resulted from collaborations with stakeholders and an interest on the agency’s part to turn around underperforming assets in its portfolio.One of the primary factors to be considered when developing partnerships and cooperative management arrangements involving Federal historic property is the importance of the asset to the local community. The historic signifi -cance of Federal historic properties frequently is associated with its importance to the community or region as well as its relationship to events, people, and architecture associated with the Federal Government. Hence, the presence of a Federal courthouse, national park, national research laboratory, military base, or dam in a community has a direct impact on the local economy of the community or region. The term “gateway community” is frequently used to describe the nexus between the local community and such Federal management units. The Federal presence, embodied in the historic property, becomes a catalyst for jobs, housing development, commercial expansion, and infrastructure improvements.

The management actions of Fedethat have long-term associations wproperties are critical to the commgeneral and tribal, State, and locaments in particular. Federal agencerally involved in local or regionathat will directly affect their real pand operations. Unfortunately, this not always true. Local governmexpressed concern about not beinduring the latter stages of plannineral agencies propose to transfer, properties. This is particularly prowith historic properties since theicance to a community often goes economic value and is intimately the history and culture of the comSome communities and regions rethe presence of national forests, naor other Federal governmental asseheritage tourism. Therefore, issues maintenance, access, capital improsecurity all have a bearing on a comability to sustain a signifi cant porteconomic livelihood. While agencalways involve stakeholders in the of project planning, such collaboraessential element of Federal stewarthe stakeholders who can provide on the economics of Federal histoto the community and bring to an tention the community’s long-term goals for using such properties. Public-private partnerships, lease aand cooperative management arragenerally intended to preserve a sptoric property and operate it to leveral funds. The ACHP’ report BecStewards of Our Past 17 provides a n

examples about partnerships that hheritage tourism and economic dearound historic properties that oth

32 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

17 ACHP, March 2004.

The Lodore School was constructed in 1911 and served for decades as the educational and social center of a sparsely settled area in northwest Colorado. Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
U

Post 

Uni

Located at 46 East Robinson Strdowntown Orlando, Florida, the Offi ce is built in the style know Italian Palazzo Revival and has thbasement, and towers on the noends. The approximately 75,000 facility was built on property onan adjacent church. Constructio1939 during the Roosevelt admiand was completed in 1941 for a of $575,000. The completed budesignated as both the Post Offi Federal Courthouse. Restoration in 2002 demonstrathistoric architecture could be reand adapted into a modern instbuilding. Redevelopment was cono cost to local or Federal taxpawas privately fi nanced. The histand interiors of the original Posrestored. The building also was commercial and institutional usthat was sympathetic to its histoand that strictly adhered to Redand Design Guidelines jointly cby U.S. Post Offi ce, the redeveloconsultant, and the City of Orla

Examples of initiatives cited by agencies include heritage education programs, virtual tours, controlled access tours, and alteration of perimeter boundaries to exclude certain historic properties, museums, or visitor facilities from secured areas. 

The Section 3 reports reveal that no agencies have formal policies and procedures in place that address the use of Federal properties to support local economic development. Programs such as the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) and the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Program recognize the need to address local economic development in proposed actions. However, most agencies handle decision-making regarding the use of Federal historic properties on a case-by-case basis. Issues that are routinely addressed when determining how to support local initiatives include legal liability, costs to the Federal Government, Federal oversight, stakeholder involvement, and performance measures. Written policies and procedures would greatly assist Federal property managers in determining the framework for negotiating formal and informal arrangements to support local economic development. 

34 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 4 

Citizens learn about the government’s work on their behalf during tours of historic facilities such as this presentation at the Dryden Flight Research Center. Edwards, California (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) 
chapter 5 200

36 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 4

Appearing much as it did two centuries ago, large stretches of the Missouri River Wild and Scenic River and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail are located on a mosaic of private and public lands. Montana (Bureau of Land Management)
Section 3(c) of EO 13287 requires each agency 

with real property management responsibilities to prepare a report by September 30, 2005, on its progress in identifying, protecting, and using historic properties in its ownership. Twenty-three of the 35 agencies that submitted baseline reports also prepared progress reports. The Section 3 progress reports respond in part to comments provided by the ACHP and DOI on the baseline reports. The primary benefi t to the ACHP in reviewing these reports was to learn what progress had been made since the submission of the initial report and to clarify linkages to the Preserve America initiative. Accordingly, the ACHP review focused on progress in the three primary areas set forth in the EO: the identifi cation, protection, and use of Federal historic properties. While the EO established only a one-year period to measure initial progress, this period was adequate for agencies to get acclimated to the requirements of the EO and to take into account comments provided by the ACHP and DOI on the baseline reports. The response by agencies to the requirement that progress reports be submitted is encouraging and demonstrates their commitment to improved Federal stewardship and the Preserve America initiative. Moreover, agencies indicated that the baseline information in the initial Section 3 report had been used within 

their respective agencies to increase awareness of the need to improve the preservation program and take steps to better account for and manage historic properties. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration stated in their 2005 progress report the following: 

The 2004 EO 13287 Section 3 Report provided NASA with a useful overview of the state of the agency’s CRM [Cultural Resource Management] programs. The process of collecting information for the report revealed that NASA Headquarters was not fully aware of all of the CRM activities being undertaken by the fi eld installations. The report identifi ed the need to collect NASA CRM documents, and create a system for sharing this information among the installations. The report revealed that NASA CRM activities were not being conducted consistently among the installations. Thus the initial 2004 report served as a catalyst for change. 

Ultimately, the progress reports should serve as a blueprint for how each agency will proceed during the next three years to meet the overall goals of EO 13287 with regards to stewardship, partnering opportunities, and heritage tourism. Many agencies have expressed a willingness to reevaluate current programs and consider 

needed changes. An example of thment is illustrated in the 2005 profrom the United States Postal Servthey indicate the following: 

Completion of the 2004 report haawareness of the Postal Service’s cusources at multiple levels. Greater being paid to ensuring that the Pocomplies with existing policies and as well as federal laws. Increased ahas also led to additional consideracultural resource activities when dthe FY06 budget....

The progress reports clarify and expnumber of issues presented by the ADOI in their comments. Most of taddressed the 10 major trends and lined in Chapter 3. Thus, the ACHto gain more insight into the types properties included in each agency the protocols for nominating propedetermined eligible for inclusion in Register, and opportunities for Fedproperties to help sustain local econThe agencies also used the progress showcase special agency initiatives utie directly or indirectly to the Preserinitiative. Since many of the agenciebriefed through participation on the America Steering Committee on how cies are advancing the initiative, agensought to fi nd opportunities to supp

America with creative projects and fi 

port for partnerships involving Fedeproperties. Additionally, the progresformalize the nexus between Section 13287 and the reporting requiremenin EO 13327 with regard to real promanagement. As previously noted, u13327, agencies are required to repoassets as one of 23 mandatory data eprimary goal of the FRPC establishe13327 is to maintain the Federal po

38 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

2005 PROGRESS REPORTS
Undaunted Stewardship 

Montana

Bureau of Land Management 

Undaunted Stewardship is a Bureau of Land Management partnership in Montana that opens private lands to heritage travelers. It was created by the Bureau of Land Management, the Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana State University, and U.S. Senator Conrad Burns.Undaunted Stewardship was originated by Montana’s ranching and agricultural community and offi cially began in April 2001. It is experiencing steady growth as more landowners join the program, which recognizes and encourages stewardship of natural and cultural resources by 

private landowners. The program spurs development of management plans. It also assists landowners in creating information kiosks and other interpretive resources for public visitation and education on private lands containing historic sites, and other associated efforts. Undaunted Stewardship was the recipient of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s 2005 Chairman’s Award for Federal Achievement in Historic Preservation. As John L. Nau, III, chairman of the ACHP, remarked at the ACHP’s award ceremony for this project:

This site on private land is associated with the Lewis & Clark Expedition and was made available to the public through a partnership among the Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana State University, and the Bureau of Land Management. (Bureau of Land Management)

• Most agencies do not regularly 

condition assessments for histties. However, several agencies that they have procedures for the conditions of historic propthese procedures will be used on a regular basis to establish index for each asset in accorda13327. Details were not proviever, regarding when conditiowill be conducted, who will coand how the information will 

• Impediments such as security, 

mental contamination, and acstill a challenge, but agencies aing creative ways to work arouchallenges and interpret the sihistoric properties, such as thrtourism and heritage educatio

• Most notably, many agencies 

partnerships, economic deve

40 

advisory c

case study 20

• National Park Service: In F

the authority of Section 111 for lessee performed rehabilin revenue in FY 2003 that 

• Rural Development: In Mar

initiative where Preserve Amwould be given priority poi

• National Aeronautics and Sp

development of digital rendenel located at the NASA LanHistoric Landmark] since 19prototype of the facility with of NASA NHL’s. Virtual touallowing public access to NH

• Department of Energy: DO

the K-25 plant at Oak Ridgby turning over plants and wconstruction, by the private 

Figure 7: Excerpts from 2

“Montana’s landscape today vividly recalls that Demonstrate Improvthe pristine country traversed by the Lewis and Clark expedition 200 years ago, in large measure because of wise stewardship on both private and public lands. Just as public land stewards protect and provide reasonable access to sites important to our heritage, private landowners in Montana are encouraging appropriate heritage travel to historic sites on their property through the Undaunted Stewardship program while preserving and enhancing cultural and natural resources. This is a wonderful model for similar partnerships across the nation.”
Cathlapotle Archeological Site 

Research Project 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Department of the Interior

The Cathlapotle Archeological Site is located along the Columbia River on Ridgefi eld National Wildlife Refuge in Washington State. The site includes a village, fi rst documented by Lewis and Clark in 1805, that was one of the largest and most important Chinook settlements on the Columbia River and demonstrates evidence of at least 2,300 years of human habitation.The project was designed as a proactive research and educational outreach effort to share a disappearing aspect of the Columbia River legacy with its inheritors, educate people in the area, generate a sense of stewardship among local residents, promote understanding of past and present Chinook culture, provide educational materials for schoolchildren, and draw tourists. Strong partnerships with Portland State University, 

the Chinook Tribe, and a volunteer advisory panel of Vancouver-area teachers made the project possible. Supported by challenge grant funds, Portland State University studied and reported on the site, enabling the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to conduct high-quality research for a relatively low cost. The Chinook Tribe, an active partner, recognized the project as an opportunity to delve deeper into its own heritage and share its knowledge of Chinook history with the people who now live in its traditional territory. Through outreach programs and products developed for the project, FWS also established an ongoing and positive partnership with the local community, which has benefi ted the site through increased awareness and a sense of stewardship generated among residents for the cultural heritage in their own backyard. Outreach aspects of the project have involved public tours of the excavation, a community archeology festival, and presenting information at events such as powwows and public outreach programs. Currently, excavation of the site is complete, and lab research, public interpretation, and education are ongoing. Present emphasis is on developing educational materials and outreach opportunities to bring the story of Cathlapotle to the public. The FWS’s nonprofi t partner, the Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Committee of Vancouver/Clark County, is raising funds for the project; to date, the project has received over $80,000 in grants and donations.

Lewis and Clark estimated 900 people of the “Quathlapotle Nation” lived in a large Chinook community (today called Cathlapotle) when they visited in 1806, but disease withered the population and the town of cedar plank structures was abandoned by 1840. Archeologists, scholars, and Native Americans are among the partners rediscovering and interpreting the site for new generations. Ridgefi eld National Wildlife Refuge, Washington (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

42

case study

chapter 6 FIN
This chapter contains the ACHP’s conclusions regarding the current state of Federal 

historic property management and its recommendations for improvement. While the primary basis for these recommendations is the reports submitted by Federal agencies, the ACHP also took note of recent actions that are underway to address the systemic problems agencies encounter in their stewardship of historic properties. Many may assume that additional funding or property disposal would alleviate all of an agency’s management challenges, but the ACHP does not believe that to be the case. Instead, concurrent with efforts to improve the asset and Federal property management system, the Federal Government needs to develop an ethic that considers the preservation and use of agency historic properties from the broader perspective of public benefi ts. This public includes not only tribal, State, and local communities, but also the private sector that has invested, or desires to invest, in heritage tourism and local economic development initiatives. Widespread appreciation by Federal property managers of the unique resources in their inventories will lead to wiser management practices and decisions that will benefi t Federal agencies, the local community, and the historic assets themselves.

FINDING NO. 1Many of the agencies that own and control Federal real property have made signifi cant progress since 2001 in identifying the historic properties for which they are responsible. However, many agencies continue to lack accurate, comprehensive information regarding the historic property assets in their inventory and may not fully understand their property’s value and management requirements.The information provided by the majority of property managing agencies indicates that because of recent reforms in government accounting and management, these agencies now regularly collect information on heritage assets and cultural resources for inclusion in required annual government-wide reports. However, methodologies and data systems for collecting such information vary from agency to agency, and sometimes even are inconsistent among the various fi eld offi ces within a particular agency. Problems are also exacerbated by the use of poorly defi ned or inconsistent terminology (such as the overlapping terms “historic properties” and “cultural resources”), which also skews the results of data gathering and reporting. This makes it diffi cult to summarize comparable fi ndings or use one data system to compile 

information and prepare input for Financial Offi cers Report and the ESection 3 report concurrently. Agencies that own and manage mreal property holdings comprising type property, such as courthousefacilities, typically have a good grahistoric property inventory and corate and uniform data. The majorcies by their own admission have information on a broader variety properties that was often deemed inaccurate, and not comprehensivthat had been collected over the yupdated or verifi ed with recent sitfi eld staff. Adjustments had not brefl ect recent alterations to historifrom agency actions or mitigation carried out in accordance with the and other authorities. Guidance ton data collection was either not pwas unclear, resulting in inconsistwithin the agency. Perhaps most nis the fact that historic property droutinely collected by qualifi ed pror even by individuals who had herty management or preservation Even when data had been collectetext of fulfi lling compliance respospecifi c projects or programs, the was not regularly incorporated inthistoric property management datAs stated above, the lack of “usefuparable data” was one of the probthe Federal Real Property Asset MAgenda, a component of the 2004 Management Agenda subsequentlin EO 13327. The reports submitby real property agencies in Decemin response to EO 13327 providea substantial number of historic pthat will further the understandinFederal government’s real property their needs. This information, how

44 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
agencies can better coordinate the reporting requirements set forth in EO 13287 

and EO 13327 to avoid duplication of effort, to advance the goal of uniform and consistent historic property data, and to improve overall coordination of government-wide reporting related to Federal real property management.

FINDING NO. 2Agency strategic plans, which are prepared by senior policy-makers to assist in fulfi lling the agency’s mission, often do not address historic property management needs or target historic property issues related to the development of business plans, ongoing facilities management, and capital improvement projects and programs. The Section 3 reports regularly stated that agencies do not address historic preservation responsibilities set forth in Section 110 of the NHPA through their strategic planning process. Since agency strategic plans assist in setting budget priorities and in addressing major facilities management plans and capital improvement projects, historic preservation planning should be refl ected in these documents. Activities related to historic properties, such as maintenance, stabilization, and minor renovations, are not considered major programs and often are not supported through designated budgets. Several agencies stated that because these activities are not given priority status, vacant and underutilized buildings that do not appear to directly support the agency’s mission suffer from neglect, deterioration, and even demolition. The absence of management objectives and performance goals for historic property management in a strategic context sends the wrong message to Federal property managers. Rather than allocating funds solely for compliance 

purposes or in response to potential threats to health and safety, agencies would do well to be proactive and fund actions that result in improved property management. The belief that historic properties are more costly and more complicated to use or reuse for agency operations and other public uses often becomes a self-fulfi lling prophecy when an agency’s inaction sets the stage for loss of important heritage assets. 

Recommendations 

• The Administration should consider 

requiring agency strategic plans to reference how management goals can promote improved historic preservation planning, including an assessment of how the agency could use historic properties to better support the agency’s mission. 

• The ACHP and GSA’s Center for 

Historic Buildings should collaborate to determine what types of guidance and training on contemporary business models for portfolio management, including instruction on how to consider historic property values and needs in business plans, are needed by agencies. 

• The ACHP and the NPS should develop 

guidance and share best practices with property managers that illustrate how historic preservation issues should be addressed as a component of facilities management and operations in support of the agency’s mission. 

FINDING NO. 3Agency priorities do not typically include staffi ng and funds to support the historic property stewardship goals of the NHPA or to address at-risk and under-performing historic properties within the agency’s inventory. 

46

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 6

United 

Gene

Note: This case study is taken from ExtenLegacy: GSA Historic Building Steward“United States Courthouse Erie, PennsylAs federal space needs change, Gbuildings viable by reprogramminserve new functions. The key to sreprogramming is matching availbuildings to suitable tenants. For the Federal courthouse in Erie, PeGSA acquired underutilized histoa beaux arts municipal library and art moderne clothing store now sGSA’s 1930s art deco courthousestructures are linked by a contemaddition that serves as a gateway. old and new structures doubled tof habitable space, not only enabto meet the court’s requirements, revitalizing the historic downtowThe courthouse was completed iserves the U.S. District Court foDistrict of Pennsylvania. The 13foot facility is composed of three buildings—the 1899 Erie Public 1937 Federal Building and U.S. and the 1946 Isaac Baker and SoStore Building—plus a new anneconnecting lobby structure. The site held a courthouse, shops, anbuilt in the late 19th century undemolished for the 1937 Federal and U.S. Courthouse and the 19Store Building. Archeological excprior to the recent construction tapproximately 20,000 artifacts, s
Since most resource management and operational preservation activities occur at the 

fi eld level, access to historic preservation and cultural resource management expertise for regional and fi eld offi ces is important. The Section 3 reports from the largest property owners note that the employment of qualifi ed staff is a challenge and often results in reactive rather than proactive surveys, resource evaluation, site protection, and condition assessments. Even the use of contractors in a number of these agencies fails to fi ll this gap, 

since most services are procured for specifi c 

undertakings rather than on a long-term resource management basis. This situation is often exacerbated by lack of training and guidance to the fi eld regarding agency compliance priorities for Section 110 and limited agency directives on ongoing historic property planning and management. Agencies have designated Federal Preservation Offi cers (FPOs) in accordance with Section 110 to help lead and coordinate agency-wide preservation activities. However, some of the FPOs lack the required training and professional background to meet the needs of their positions or the Secretary of the Interior’s Historic Preservation Professional Qualifi cation Standards. Conversely, many qualifi ed FPOs are not given suffi cient responsibility and involvement in the strategic planning and budgeting process and most lack the authority to provide oversight of activities of fi eld-level personnel. Consequently, they are unable to effectively provide the leadership needed to improve their agency’s historic preservation program. In agencies with more recently established historic preservation programs, it is not unusual for the FPO also to serve as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordinator with a focus on integrating historic preservation with NEPA reviews and other environmental requirements. Historic preservation may therefore be seen more as a collateral or secondary duty than a primary assignment. 

Finally, the Section 3 reports indicate that there is often limited coordination between land or facilities managers and historic preservation and cultural resource staff in the ongoing management decisions affecting historic properties. While many agency programs require that Section 106 coordinators or cultural resource staff review project or program activities to identify historic properties and assess potential effects, there is rarely full integration of these staff into budgeting, long-term planning, and decisionmaking for capital improvement projects. Since historic properties are part of the agency’s real estate portfolio, this often results in a failure to properly refl ect historic values and preservation 

needs in management decisions. 

Recommendations 

• The Administration should encourage 

agencies to use qualifi ed preservation professionals, rather than non-preservationists assigned to historic preservation as a collateral duty, to assist with establishing and implementing agency policies and protocols for complying with NHPA and related preservation regulations, directives, and guidelines. 

• The Administration should reaffi rm that 

real property managing agencies must show leadership in historic preservation and encourage policies and procedures that promote the use or reuse of historic properties to advance the agency’s mission and support local economic development.

• The Administration should collaborate 

with the private sector to identify contemporary strategies for facilities management and oversight for historic properties as well as provide incentives for relevant research and development, technology transfer, and project innovation.

FINDING NO. 4Executive branch agencies would bfrom directives or guidelines that pestablishment of private-public parconsistent with agency missions and laws, for the preservation and use oowned and controlled historic proplocal economic development initiatincluding heritage tourism. Federal agencies each identifi ed pprocedures that they used to help private partnerships to manage reincluding historic properties. A paemerged is that such partnerships leverage Federal funds and staff to proper stewardship. Thus, a varietof ...” groups, nonprofi ts, local adgroups, and civic associations havin recent years to help protect, mause resources that might be at risk non-Federal assistance. Homeland security requirements amilitary security have hampered sograms, particularly those that must Federal employees or visitors withirestricted areas of Federal facilities Nonetheless, agencies continue to value of the fi nancial, technical, anment assistance provided by partnefact, some agencies are providing sreplicate successful programs throuand State offi ces.What is notable is that few agenciehave formal procedures or internal that explain and support agency paon historic preservation with triballocal governments and the private in some cases there are signifi cant padministrative obstacles to such coMany agencies stated that they rely or case-specifi c legal or program adpartnerships on historic preservatio

48 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

chapter 6 finding
histo

resour

Kootena

De

The Historic Raven Natural ResLearning Center began its historas the Raven Ranger Station. In thorse and mule transportation, ithe newly created Forest Service station for the southern end of thmillion acre Kootenai National Fnonprofi t organizations, CommuGreat Northwest and Provider Pwith almost 30 other partners, inthe Forest Service, local communmajor foundations, schools, busiindividuals to preserve this histor

The President and MBruce Vincent, ExecuProvider Pals and Cofor a Great NorthwesCastaneda, Kootenai Forest Supervisor, a PAmerica Presidential Oval Offi ce for the HNatural Resource LeaWashington D.C. (Paul Morse, White HHistoric Raven NaturaLearning Center is a love and a partnershstructures are teachinthe importance of naand stewardship. KooForest, Montana (For

FINDING NO. 5Agencies generally lack procedures that ensure the timely consideration of alternative uses for historic properties that are excess to or no longer able to support an agency’s mission. A pattern that emerged from the Section 3 reports is the frequent existence of real property within an agency’s portfolio that is incompatible with an agency’s current mission and essentially nonperforming. While agencies with limited real property holdings have generally found uses for their historic properties, larger agencies such as the VA, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management indicate that a fairly large percentage of their inventories is excess to each agency’s mission. They also concede that formal decisions regarding long-term disposition do not happen quickly. This often results in local communities’ complaints about federally owned and neglected “white elephants” in the community.The Section 3 reports recognize the fi nancial and administrative challenges of managing underutilized or functionally obsolete properties. Although traditionally these properties are buildings and structures, in many instances historic districts, cultural landscapes, archeological sites, and traditional cultural properties are now included among these “at risk” historic properties. Following years of deferred maintenance and neglect, often the agency concludes that the cost of repair or rehabilitation is economically prohibitive. Demolition or site clearance, therefore, is considered the most viable alternative with the goal of redeveloping or transferring cleared parcels free of restrictions to redevelopment. GSA, as the major Federal landlord, has been successful in promoting the retention and reuse of a number of signifi cant local landmarks that were in its inventory after being 

declared excess and surplus to the needs of specifi c Federal agencies. Recent projects located in various regions of the nation illustrate GSA’s commitment to the Federal stewardship of historic buildings using contemporary business models and real estate practices. As part of GSA’s retention-disposal analysis for properties within its inventory, the agency explores outleasing of buildings when it appears that there may be a market for Federal use in the future. In the context of developing long-term lease or comanagement agreements, GSA can determine whether to market a property for private investment or to enter into public-private partnerships that are benefi cial to the government. GSA uses the provisions of Section 111 of the NHPA to negotiate cutting-edge deals to preserve major local landmarks. Section 111 allows agencies to reinvest lease proceeds into historic preservation activities involving the subject property or other historic buildings. Consequently, historic preservation projects that may not have been considered a funding priority in a given fi scal year receive needed 

funding, allowing the Federal Government to be a good neighbor and catalyst for local revitalization initiatives. Similarly, the VA has had authority to enter into enhanced use leases since 1991. This authority is consistent with Section 111 and allows public-private partnerships that focus on improved stewardship and the reuse of excess real property.In reviewing agency responses regarding their adherence to Section 111, it was evident that agencies do not use this provision of the NHPA when exploring options for addressing excess and surplus real property. Thus, opportunities to preserve historic properties excess to agency mission requirements or that are functionally obsolete for specifi c agency programs are not automatically considered for lease or exchange. The impediments to using Section 111 vary from agency to 

50

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 6
52

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 6

agency but can best be summarized as the staff’s general lack of knowledge, including agency legal staff. The Section 3 reports confi rm that improvement in Federal asset management and historic property stewardship must incorporate strategies that value the uniqueness of historic properties and consider their cultural and social value to a community in addition to their economic value. The economic analyses that do not consider the potential for a reused or redeveloped Federal historic property to act as a catalyst for other revitalization efforts in the local community are faulty. This principle applies both to the Federal Government and to the private sector that uses Federal, State, and local tax incentives to assist in the reuse and redevelopment of historic properties. Recommendations

• The Administration, in collaboration with 

the FRPC, should take steps to eliminate or reduce procedural impediments to disposing of vacant, underutilized, or functionally obsolete historic properties.

• The Administration, in consultation 

with GSA and the ACHP, should review the provisions of Section 111 to determine what obstacles preclude agencies from using this authority to redirect their proceeds from the sale, lease, or transfer of historic properties to other preservation projects in the absence of agency specifi c legislation. 

• The Administration should review how 

enhanced use-lease authorities are granted and used by agencies to promote historic preservation goals and determine whether this authority can be incorporated in government-wide regulations rather than agency-by-agency legislation. 

• The ACHP, in cooperation with the NPS 

and GSA, should share among agencies examples of successful outcomes resulting from using Section 111 leasing authorities.

• The ACHP should use opportunities 

presented by the DoD’s current and past rounds of BRAC to determine whether there are appropriate economic redevelopment and reuse models that may be transferable. 

FINDING NO. 6Agencies that own and control real property would benefi t from more coordinated and systematic Federal oversight that focuses on the stewardship of federally owned historic properties and their availability for local economic development initiatives.The Federal Government has relied on agency compliance with the NHPA to ensure that its stewardship responsibilities as set forth in Section 110 were being met. Despite the oversight roles established for the NPS and the ACHP through changes to the law in 1992 and the issuance of the Section 110 Guidelines in 1998, the agencies have basically been self-policing with limited external review or monitoring. The issuance of EO 13287 changed this practice, and agencies for the fi rst time were actually required to submit to outside scrutiny and receive feedback on how they have established and are managing their historic preservation programs. The progress made by many agencies since 1992 is certainly encouraging, and it is anticipated that agencies will make even more signifi cant progress before the next ACHP Report to the President is submitted in 2009. When the President issued EO 13327, the creation of the FRPC was a major component of this government-wide directive. The establishment of this council under OMB h

cessfully commanded the attention leadership. Improved Federal real pmanagement has promised to increresources by selling off excess propaddition, these efforts should imprment by focusing on resources thato agency missions, streamline maiand repair by reducing property inand increase necessary knowledge ocies’ properties and their needs. Through the reporting and coordimechanisms established by these Eand 13287, an accountability systecreated that offers a great opportunprove Federal stewardship of historover the long term. Analysis of the of reports under both EOs is likely further refi nement of those mecha

Recommendations • FRPC members should cons

with offi cials that oversee thetive agency’s preservation prodiscuss ways to incorporate s

advisory c

finding
54

chapter 7 NEX

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

chapter 6

The Mabry Mill, VA, is the most photographed structure on the Blue Ridge Parkway. While its scenic beauty draws travelers, it also serves as a living classroom of mountain heritage, and provides access to the Mountain Industry Trail which offers interpretive insight into area history and culture. (Photo by Cedric N. Chatterley)
While a variety of agencies will be involved in 

evaluating and carrying out the steps recommended in this report, the ACHP is committed to moving forward on those actions it can take. In fi scal years 2006 through 2008, the ACHP in cooperation with its members will develop an action plan to assist real property managing agencies achieve the benchmarks that they have established in Federal real property and asset management. The focus of the ACHP’s efforts will be on improving agency knowledge of and sensitivity to the basic stewardship principles set forth in the NHPA and EO 13287. To achieve this goal, the ACHP proposes a fi ve-point plan that outlines the next steps the ACHP will implement to help agencies maintain their momentum in understanding and managing their Federal historic properties as valuable assets. 

1. During FY 2006, the ACHP will 

consult with agencies to determine actions the agencies will take by 2008, to improve their historic preservation programs and to make progress in the identifi cation, protection, and use of agency historic properties. 

2. Prior to the 2006 deadline for the 

submission of EO 13327 asset 

management plans to OMACHP will collaborate witOMB to determine how thcould ensure that historic and stewardship goals as dthe NHPA are addressed in plans required for each rep

3. During FY 2007, the ACH

convene a Federal stewardmeeting that focuses on thsubmitted to ACHP pursuEO 13287 and to OMB pto EO 13327. 

4. During FY 2007, the ACH

collaborate with GSA, the another land managing agdevelop a primer on outleahistoric buildings to improforming assets. 

5. Beginning in FY 2006 and 

ing through FY 2008, the consult with non-Federal ers to identify measures thwill promote public-privatships and assist with local development initiatives antourism programs. 

56 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

NEXT STEPS“Bug Light,” as the Portland Breakwater Light is known locally, is today a focal point of a scenic pedestrian trail. Built in 1875, it was modeled on a fourth century B.C. monument in Greece and is unique among lighthouses as a result. Portland, Maine (U.S. Coast Guard)
APPENDICES

Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area petroglyphs, NV 

advisory c

By the authority vested in me as PreConstitution and the laws of the Unof America, including the National Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et and the National Environmental Po(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), it is herebSec 1. Statement of PoliIt is the policy of the Federal Governvide leadership in preserving Americby actively advancing the protectionment, and contemporary use of the properties owned by the Federal Goand by promoting intergovernmenttion and partnerships for the preservof historic properties. The Federal Gshall recognize and manage the histoties in its ownership as assets that cadepartment and agency missions whing to the vitality and economic welNation’s communities and fostering appreciation for the development of States and its underlying values. Whwith executive branch department amissions, governing law, applicable ption standards, and where appropriabranch departments and agencies (““agencies”) shall advance this policy the protection and continued use of properties owned by the Federal Goand by pursuing partnerships with Sgovernments, Indian tribes, and the to promote the preservation of the utural heritage of communities and oand to realize the economic benefi t properties can provide. Agencies shaefforts to integrate the policies, procpractices of the NHPA and this ordprogram activities in order to effi ciefectively advance historic preservatioin the pursuit of their missions. EXECUTIVE ORDE
types of historic properties to contribute to 

community economic development initiatives, including heritage tourism, taking into account agency mission needs, public access considerations, and the long-term preservation of the historic properties. No later than September 30, 2004, each covered agency shall complete a report of the assessment and make it available to the Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council) and the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary). (b) No later than September 30, 2004, each agency with real property management responsibilities shall review its regulations, management policies, and operating procedures for compliance with sections 110 and 111 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470h-2 & 470h-3) and make the results of its review available to the Council and the Secretary. If the agency determines that its regulations, management policies, and operating procedures are not in compliance with those authorities, the agency shall make amendments or revisions to bring them into compliance. (c) Each agency with real property management responsibilities shall, by September 30, 2005, and every third year thereafter, prepare a report on its progress in identifying, protecting, and using historic properties in its ownership and make the report available to the Council and the Secretary. The Council shall incorporate this data into a report on the state of the Federal Government’s historic properties and their contribution to local economic development and submit this report to the President by February 15, 2006, and every third year thereafter. (d) Agencies may use existing information gathering and reporting systems to fulfi ll the assessment and reporting requirements of subsections 3(a)-(c) of this order. To assist agencies, the Council, in consultation with the Secretary, shall, by September 30, 2003, prepare advisory guidelines for agencies to use at their discretion. 

(e) No later than June 30, 2003, the head of each agency shall designate a senior policy level offi cial 

to have policy oversight responsibility for the agency’s historic preservation program and notify the Council and the Secretary of the designation. This senior offi cial shall be an assistant secretary, deputy assistant secretary, or the equivalent, as appropriate to the agency organization. This offi cial, or a subordinate employee reporting directly to the offi cial, shall serve as the agency’s Federal Preservation Offi cer in accordance with section 110(c) of the NHPA. The senior offi cial shall ensure that the Federal Preservation Offi cer is qualifi ed consistent with guidelines established by the Secretary for that position and has access to adequate expertise and support to carry out the duties of the position. 

Sec. 4. Improving Federal Stewardship of Historic Properties. (a) Each agency shall ensure that the management of historic properties in its ownership is conducted in a manner that promotes the long-term preservation and use of those properties as Federal assets and, where consistent with agency missions, governing law, and the nature of the properties, contributes to the local community and its economy. (b) Where consistent with agency missions and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation, and where appropriate, agencies shall cooperate with communities to increase opportunities for public benefi t from, and access to, Federally owned historic properties. (c) The Council is directed to use its existing authority to encourage and accept donations of money, equipment, and other resources from public and private parties to assist other agencies in the preservation of historic properties in Federal ownership to fulfi ll the goals of the NHPA and this order. 

60 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

appendices 

APPENDIX A 

(d) The National Park Service, worthe Council and in consultation wagencies, shall make available existand information for education, traawareness of historic property stewensure that all Federal personnel hinformation and can develop the ssary to continue the productive use owned historic properties while mestewardship responsibilities. (e) The Council, in consultation wtional Park Service and other agenccourage and recognize exceptional by such agencies in meeting the goNHPA and this order. By March 3Council shall submit to the Presideheads of agencies recommendationstimulate initiative, creativity, and the Federal stewardship of historic Sec. 5. Promoting PreservatThrough Heritage Tourism(a) To the extent permitted by law existing resources, the Secretary of working with the Council and otheshall assist States, Indian tribes, and munities in promoting the use of herties for heritage tourism and relatdevelopment in a manner that conthe long-term preservation and proof those properties. Such assistance efforts to strengthen and improve hism activities throughout the countrelate to Federally owned historic psignifi cant natural assets on Federal (b) Where consistent with agency mgoverning law, and where approprishall use historic properties in their in conjunction with State, tribal, anism programs to foster viable econoships, including, but not limited toand coordination with tourism offi others with interests in the propert
62 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

appendices 

ChairmanJohn L. Nau, III (Texas)Vice ChairmanBernadette Castro (New York)Expert MembersJohn G. Williams, III, AIA (Washington)Julia A. King, Ph.D. (Maryland)Ann Alexander Pritzlaff (Colorado) Susan Snell Barnes (Illinois)Citizen MembersMark A. Sadd (West Virginia)Emily Summers (Texas)Member of an Indian TribeGerald A. Jemison (New York)GovernorHon. Timothy Pawlenty (Minnesota) MayorVacantArchitect of the CapitolHon. Alan M. Hantman, FAIASecretary of the InteriorHon. Gale A. NortonSecretary of AgricultureHon. Michael O. JohannsAdministrator, Environmental Protection AgencyHon. Stephen L. Johnson

Acting Administrator, General Services AdministrationHon. David L. BibbSecretary of DefenseHon. Donald H. RumsfeldSecretary of TransportationHon. Norman Y. MinetaChairman, National Trust for Historic PreservationJonathan Kemper (Missouri)President, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offi cersJay D. Vogt (South Dakota)Observer:General Chairman, National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Offi cersAlan S. Downer, Ph.D. (Navajo Nation)Observer:Secretary, Department of CommerceHon. Carlos M. GutierrezObserver:Secretary, Department of EducationHon. Margaret SpellingsObserver:Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHon. Alphonso R. Jackson

ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMBERSHIPJANUARY, 2006

APPENDIX B

Part 102-78 Historic PreservationAuthority: 16 U.S.C. 470h–2; 40 121(c) and 581.Source: 70 FR 67848, Nov. 8, 200unless otherwise noted.Subpart A—General Provisions§ 102-78.5 What is the scope of this part?The real property policies containeapply to Federal agencies, includinlic Buildings Service (PBS), operatsubject to, the authorities of the Adof General Services. The policies in in furtherance of GSA’s preservatiounder section 110 of the National Preservation Act of 1966, as amendU.S.C. 470) and apply to propertijurisdiction or control of the Admito any Federal agencies operating, or protecting such properties undetion of authority from the Admini§ 102-78.10 What basic historic preservation pgoverns Federal agencies? To protect, enhance, and preserve cultural property under their contrTITLE 41—PUBLIC AND PROPERTY MSUBTITLE C—FEDMANAGEMENT RECHAPTER 102—FEDREGULATIONS
§ 102-78.25 

What is an undertaking?The term undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those—

(a) Carried out by or on behalf of the 

agency;

(b) Carried out with Federal fi nancial 

assistance; or

(c) Requiring a Federal permit, license, 

or approval.

§ 102-78.30 Who are consulting parties?As more particularly described in 36 C.F.R. 800.2(c), consulting parties are those parties having consultative roles in the Section 106 process (i.e., Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act), which requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Specifi cally, consulting parties include the State Historic Preservation Offi cer; the Tribal Historic Preservation Offi cer; 

Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations; representatives of local governments; applicants for Federal assistance, permits, licenses, and other approvals; other individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking; and the Advisory Council (if it elects to participate in the consultation).

§ 102-78.35 Are Federal agencies required to involve consulting parties in their historic preservation activities?Yes, Federal agencies must solicit information from consulting parties to carry out their responsibilities under historic and cultural preservation laws and regulations. Federal agencies must invite the participation of consulting parties through their normal public notifi cation processes.§ 102-78.40 What responsibilities do Federal agencies have when an undertaking adversely affects a historic or cultural property?Federal agencies must not perform an undertaking that could alter, destroy, or modify an historic or cultural property until they have consulted with the SHPO and the Advisory Council. Federal agencies must minimize all adverse impacts of their undertakings on historic or cultural properties to the extent that it is feasible and prudent to do so. Federal agencies must follow the specifi c guidance on the protection of historic and cultural properties in 36 C.F.R. part 800.§ 102-78.45 What are Federal agencies’ responsibilities concerning nomination of properties to the National Register?Federal agencies must nominate to the National Register all properties under their control determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register.

64 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

appendices 

APPENDIX C § 102-78.50 

What historic preservation serviceFederal agencies provide?Federal agencies must provide the historic preservation services:

(a) Prepare a Historic Building 

tion Plan for each National or National Register-eligiblunder their control. When consulting parties, such plaa binding management plaproperty.

(b) Investigate for historic and 

factors all proposed sites for leased construction.

§ 102-78.55 For which properties must Federaassume historic preservation respoFederal agencies must assume histovation responsibilities for real propunder their custody and control. Fcies occupying space in buildings ucustody and control of other Federmust obtain approval from the agecustody and control of the buildin§ 102-78.60 When leasing space, are Federal ato give preference to space in histoties or districts?Yes, Executive Order 13006 requireagencies that have a mission requirelocate in an urban area to give fi rst cto space in historic buildings and di
Ag

Fe

Prese

Of

desig

Agency for International Development Department of Agriculture  Agricultural Research Service Forest Service Farm Services Agency  Natural Resource  Conservation Service Rural DevelopmentDepartment of Commerce  National Oceanic  & Atmospheric  AdministrationDepartment of DefenseDepartment of Education Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionDepartment of Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security  Department of  Homeland Security— Law Enforcement  and TrainingDepartment of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior  Bureau of  Indian Affairs Bureau of  Land Management Bureau of  Reclamation Fish &  Wildlife Service National Park Service United States  Geological Survey

66 

the preserve america executive order, report to the president advisory c

appendices 

APPENDIX D EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES COMPLIANCE WITH EXECUTIVE 

Department of Justice  Federal Bureau  of PrisonsDepartment of LaborDepartment of StateDepartment of Transportation  Federal Aviation  Administration Federal Highway  Administration Surface  Transportation BoardDepartment of Treasury  Bureau of Engraving  and PrintingDepartment of Veterans AffairsEnvironmental Protection Agency General Services AdministrationNational Archives and Records AdministrationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science FoundationNuclear Regulatory Commission Offi ce of Personnel Management Small Business AdministrationSocial Security AdministrationTennessee Valley AuthorityUnited States Postal Service 

Agency 

Federal 

Preservation 

Offi cer 

designated

Agency 

Senior Policy 

Offi cial 

designated 

per EO 13287

EO 13287: 

Section 3 2004 

baseline 

report fi led

EO 13287: 

Section 3 2005 

progress report 

fi led

Senior Real 

Property Offi cer 

designated in 

accordance with AGENCY EO 13327 AGENCY
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

www.achp.govBureau of Land Managementwww.blm.govDepartment of Defensewww.dod.govDepartment of Energywww.doe.govDepartment of the Air Forcewww.af.milDepartment of the Army www.army.milDepartment of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationwww.preserveamerica.noaa.govDepartment of the Navy www.navy.milFederal Accounting Standards Advisory Boardwww.fasab.govFederal Preservation Institutewww.ncptt.nps.gov/fpi/General Services Administrationwww.gsa.gov

National Aeronautical and Space Administrationwww.nasa.govNational Historic Lighthouse Preservation Actwww.cr.nps.gov/maritime/nhlpaNational Park Servicewww.nps.govOffi ce of Management and Budgetwww.whitehouse.gov/omb/Preserve America www.preserveamerica.govTake Pride in Americawww.takepride.govU.S. Coast Guard www.uscg.milU.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicewww.fws.govUSDA Forest Servicewww.fs.fed.usUSDA National ResourcesConservation Serviceswww.nrcs.usda.govUSDA Rural Development www.rurdev.usda.gov

68

the preserve america executive order, report to the president

appendices

APPENDIX E FEDERAL AGENCY WEBSITES

The following list of agency Websites includes sites with information on federally owned historic properties, heritage assets, and heritage tourism programs