ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS

1998 - 1999
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is an independent Federal agency established by the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470f). The Council advises the 

President and Congress on historic preservation matters, administers the public review and consultation 

process for Federal undertakings established by Section 106 of NHPA, and works to improve Federal 

policies, programs, planning, and decisions when they affect the Nation’s historic and cultural resources.

Cathryn Buford Slater of Little Rock, Arkansas, is Chairman of the 20-member Council, which is 

served by a small professional staff headed by Executive Director John M. Fowler. The Council maintains 

offices in Washington, DC, and Lakewood, Colorado. For more information about the Council, 

contact the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 

Suite 809, Washington, DC 20004. (202) 606-8503. www.achp.gov.

The President

The President of the Senate

The Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs:

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

herewith transmits its annual report for Fiscal Years

1998 and 1999 in accordance with Section 202(b)

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,

Public Law 89-665.

Respectfully submitted,

Cathryn Buford Slater

Chairman

Washington, DC

October 2000
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS

1998 - 1999

Table of Contents

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON i H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

FROM THE CHAIRMAN ..........................................................................................................................................iii

ABOUT THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION..................................................................................iv

1998-1999 IN REVIEW ............................................................................................................................................v

I. COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS ........................................................................................1

Fall 1997, Washington, DC: Regulatory Revision..................................................................................1

Suburban Sprawl ..............................................................................................................................1

Spring 1998, Miami, Florida: Preserving the Recent Past ......................................................................2

California Route 710 ........................................................................................................................2

Figure 1: Chairman Slater Refers California Freeway Case to President Clinton ..............................3

The Council’s Contribution to the White House Millennium Program ............................................4

The White House Millennium Program ............................................................................................4

Summer 1998, Alexandria, Virginia: Regulations Implementation Plan ................................................5

Educational Outreach........................................................................................................................5

New Regulations Bring New Opportunities ......................................................................................5

Defining the Council’s Millennium Contribution ..............................................................................5

Fall 1998, Santa Fe, New Mexico: Federal Stewardship of Historic Properties......................................6

DOE Preservation Challenges............................................................................................................6

Figure 2: Preservation of Manhattan Project and Cold War Historic Properties ..............................7

Presidential Memorandum ................................................................................................................8

Federal Stewardship Report ..............................................................................................................8

Figure 3: Council Nominates Civilian Conservation Corps for Presidential Millennium Award ......9

Winter 1999, Honolulu, Hawaii: Military Stewardship of Historic Properties ....................................10

Army Stewardship of Historic Properties ........................................................................................10

Navy Stewardship of Cultural Resources ........................................................................................11

Gathering Information for the Federal Stewardship Report ............................................................12

Summer 1999, Washington, DC: GSA Stewardship of Historic Buildings............................................12

Millennium Initiative: Federal Stewardship Report ........................................................................13

Section 106 Cases Spotlighted ........................................................................................................13

II. PRESERVATION POLICY ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................14

Report to Congress on Alternatives for Implementing Section 106: An Assessment........................15

Findings and Recommendations......................................................................................................15

Legislative Recommendations ..............................................................................................................16

Figure 4: Report to Congress on Alternatives to the Implementation of 

Section 106: Summary of Council Recommendations ....................................................................17

Section 106 Litigation ..........................................................................................................................19

Emerging Issues....................................................................................................................................23
Table of Contents

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON ii H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

III. IMPROVING FEDERAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION................................................................24

Figure 5: The Council’s Millennium Initiative on Federal Stewardship ................................................27

Power Production ................................................................................................................................25

Resource Protection..............................................................................................................................26

Military Issues......................................................................................................................................26

IV. PROTECTING HISTORIC PROPERTIES ....................................................................................30

Improving Section 106 Review ............................................................................................................31

Highlights of Major Changes ..........................................................................................................32

Project Reviews................................................................................................................................33

Selected Section 106 Cases, 1998-1999................................................................................................33

Federal Stewardship ............................................................................................................................34

Sprawl ..................................................................................................................................................40

Native American Issues ........................................................................................................................43

Cultural Diversity ................................................................................................................................48

Preserving the Recent Past....................................................................................................................50

V. EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ............................................................................................................52

Agency Outreach..................................................................................................................................53

Native American Outreach ..................................................................................................................54

International Training through ICCROM ............................................................................................54

Council Web Site ..................................................................................................................................55

Report to the President and Congress of the United States ..................................................................55

VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................56

APPENDIX A: Council Mission Statement ......................................................................................................59

APPENDIX B: Appropriations Statement ........................................................................................................60

APPENDIX C: Council Members, 1998-1999 ................................................................................................61

APPENDIX D: Council Professional Staff........................................................................................................62
From the Chairman

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON iii H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Thanks to the internal

reorganization we undertook in 1996-1997, we

now enjoy a stronger and

more tightly focused membership and a staff better

able to meet the needs of

the national preservation

community. We boast an

active policy agenda, an

improved Section 106

review process, and

enhanced outreach to our

customers, particularly

Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organization.

Electronic communication is an extension of that outreach, and our Web site wins regular plaudits for its

content and ease of use. 

The report that follows details two years rich in

achievement. During 1998 and 1999, the membership

met six times to explore a range of preservation issues,

from the impact of suburban sprawl on communities

nationwide, to Army and Navy preservation of the

vast inventory of historic properties under their jurisdiction. In Miami, Florida, we considered challenges

associated with preserving the recent past, while in

Washington, DC, we examined the General Services

Administration’s efforts to keep historic Federal buildings in active use. We made recommendations to the

President, arguing against a major highway construction project in Pasadena, California. We suggested to

the Secretary of Energy ways to protect Manhattan

Project and Cold War facilities under his jurisdiction.

We also met with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian

organizations to encourage their full participation in

the Section 106 review process. 

Improving Federal stewardship of the Nation’s historic

and cultural patrimony percolated throughout the

Council’s work, as the following pages make clear. In

the policy arena, we advocated increasing the Historic

Preservation Fund; supported the protection of historic

lighthouses; affirmed the need for appropriate environmental review in decisions about the construction of

cellular towers; and helped secure protection for

Revolutionary War battlefields in Pennsylvania. 

Our major program improvement initiatives had a similar emphasis. During this reporting period, the

Council made significant headway in building better

relationships with the hydroelectric power and natural

gas industries. We addressed wildfire management

with the Departments of Agriculture and Interior and

streamlined the environmental review process for

Federal Highway Administration highway and transit

projects. We developed an agreement with the Navy

that takes into account the costs of maintaining historic

housing, and moved closer with the Army to 

formalizing alternate procedures to our regulations. 

This focus on Federal stewardship crystallized with the

inception of the Council’s Millennium Initiative: a special report to the President and Congress with recommendations to improve Federal stewardship of historic

properties. Conceived to complement the White House

Millennium Program’s “Save America’s Treasures,”

our study, to be published in the fall of 2000, will evaluate how Federal agencies care for their historic properties. The study will examine examples of successful

stewardship undertaken by particular agencies; challenges faced by the Federal Government in managing

those assets; and ways in which funding, policy, 

programs, and performance could be improved. 

Preliminary findings of the report recognize that protection and enhancement of the Nation’s historic and

cultural patrimony need to be dealt with as a national

priority, and the Federal Government must demonstrate leadership for this to happen. Creative solutions

to funding, operation, maintenance, and management

must be developed and implemented. It is in the public

interest, and it is the right thing to do for ourselves and

the generations to come. 

Reorganization complete, new regulations in place,

and a special report to the President and Congress in

progress, the Council enters the new millennium with

renewed vigor. I invite you to peruse Report 1998-

1999 and judge for yourself.

Cathryn Buford Slater

Chairman

On the threshold of a new century and new millennium, many of us find ourselves

taking stock of what we have accomplished and what remains to be done. This is the case at the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 
WHO WE ARE

The Council’s membership embraces a broad 

spectrum of the national historic preservation 

constituency. The President of the United States

appoints 15 of our 20 members: four private 

citizens, including the Chairman; four historic

preservation experts; a member of an Indian tribe

or a Native Hawaiian organization; a governor; a

mayor; and the heads of four Federal agencies. The

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, the

Architect of the Capitol, the chairman of the

National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the

president of the National Conference of State

Historic Preservation Officers, who are designated

by law, round out the Council’s membership. 

(A list of 1998-1999 members appears as

Appendix C.) Members meet regularly to discuss

the relationship between Federal activities and historic preservation. A small professional staff in

Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, conducts

daily business.

OUR MISSION

The Council’s mission is to promote the protection

and enhancement of the Nation’s historic resources,

and we pursue our goal in a variety of ways. We

recommend to the President and Congress measures

to protect the Nation’s heritage. We consult with

Federal agencies to ensure that their policies and

operating procedures adequately consider historic

preservation laws and policies. We review individual Federal actions when they 1) substantially affect

important historic properties; 2) involve questions

of policy or interpretation; 3) have the potential for

presenting procedural problems; or 4) identify

issues of concern to Indian tribes or Native

Hawaiian organizations. We negotiate legal agreements to attain appropriate treatment of historic

properties. Finally, we provide training, guidance,

and public information to help stakeholders 

participate in Section 106 review.

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS OF THE

UNITED STATES, 1998-1999

This report to the President and Congress of the

United States is prepared under the authority of the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA),

which established the Council and the Section 106

review process and other components of the national historic preservation program. This report surveys

1998-1999 achievements in the context of the

Council’s membership meetings and provides an

overview of recent activities in the areas of preservation policy; Federal historic preservation program

improvement; protection of historic properties; and

public outreach. Report 1998-1999 covers Fiscal

Years 1998 and 1999, which began October 1, 1997,

and ended September 30, 1999. It is available in

print and as an electronic document published at the

Council’s Web site, www.achp.gov.

About the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON iv H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

ABOUT THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation protects historic properties. We are the sole Federal

entity with legal responsibility to ensure that historic preservation concerns receive serious consideration when Federal actions are planned and executed. We accomplish this through the Federal

Government’s protective process for historic properties, commonly known as “Section 106 review,”

which we administer at the national level in close cooperation with States and Indian tribes. 

The Section 106 review process guarantees the public an opportunity to participate in Federal 

decisions that might affect historic properties. Implemented by the Council’s regulations, 36 CFR Part

800, “Protection of Historic Properties,” Section 106 seeks to balance historic preservation values

with Federal project requirements in the public interest.
1998-1999 in Review

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON v H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

1998-1999 IN REVIEW

Putting the Council’s new strategic plan into action

was a primary task for 1998 and 1999. Adopted in

Fiscal Year 1997 to meet the requirements of the

Government Performance and Results Act, the plan

set long-range and six-year strategic goals in each of

the Council’s major program areas: Coordinating

Preservation Policy; Improving Federal Historic

Preservation; Protecting Historic Properties; and

Educating the Public.

Under the strategic plan, the Council encourages

public policies that promote the preservation,

enhancement, and use of historic properties and

support such activities carried out by Federal,

State, local, and tribal governments and the private

sector. We foster Federal agency programs that

meet the requirements of Section 110 of NHPA,

which encourages Federal stewardship of historic

properties, and strive for outcomes in Federal

preservation activities that advance NHPA’s purpose. Finally, we advise the public and their governmental representatives on the intrinsic value of

historic preservation. 

Galvanized by a newly articulated mission, the Council

used the plan as the blueprint to build a more efficient

and effective agency. A summary of the strategic plan

is available at www.achp.gov/mission.html.

In 1998 and 1999, we followed through on our

commitment to improving the way the Council

conducted business. Completing our internal reorganization, initiated in 1996 in response to recommendations issued by the Task Force on the Future

of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,

we moved the position of Native American

Coordinator to Washington, DC, and merged communications, publications, and legislative functions into a single office of Government Relations

and Communications. We streamlined management and empowered staff in the Office of

Planning and Review to engage in more independent decision-making, initiated long-term planning

for the annual cycle of Council meetings, and took

the unprecedented step of referring to the President

for consideration a major Section 106 case,

California’s Route 710 Freeway (Figure 1, page 3). 

Against this backdrop we continued our daily 

activities. In 1998 and 1999, the Council:

• reviewed 4,787 Federal undertakings under 

Section 106;

• executed a total of 1,183 Memoranda of Agreement;

• delivered to Congress Alternatives for

Implementing Section 106 of NHPA: An

Assessment, a report requested by the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations; 

• began development of a special report on Federal

stewardship of historic properties in conjunction

with the White House Millennium Program; and

• debuted discussion forum on our Web site to 

gather information for that report and related

purposes. 

The capstone of our reporting period came on June

17, 1999, when our revised regulations took effect.

This brought to closure a six-year effort to craft a

smarter, more responsive Section 106 review process. 

These activities were pursued with a membership of

20, a staff of 34, and an operating budget of approximately $2.75 million. They took place under the

leadership of Cathryn Buford Slater of Little Rock,

Arkansas, who was reappointed as Council

Chairman in 1996. Two new members participated

in these endeavors: citizen member Eugene A.

Ludwig, New York, New York, and Governor Angus

S. King, Jr., Brunswick, Maine. Biographical information about these and other Council members is

available at www.achp.gov/members.html.

Coordinating policy needs, encouraging responsible

Federal agency project planning and historic property

management, managing the array of Section 106 cases,

and educating and advising organizations and individuals about their historic preservation rights and responsibilities: these were but a few of the activities the Council

undertook in 1998 and 1999 to meet our statutory obligations. This report summarizes efforts toward that end. 
COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS

Section I

Council Members Tour, Mount Vernon, VA
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 1 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Accordingly, membership meetings during this period

sought answers to how the Federal Government can

better preserve, protect, and maintain historic properties under its control and how Federal agencies can be

better partners and facilitators in historic preservation

efforts. With the Administration’s call to Federal agencies to participate in the White House Millennium

Program, that question took on added resonance, ultimately catalyzing the development of a special report to

the President and Congress. The evolution of the

Council’s millennium initiative from meeting focus to

high-level policy recommendations on Federal stewardship is described below. For more information about the

White House Millennium Program, see page 4. 

Council members met six times during the reporting

period, choosing a variety of locales to consider 

different issues related to the millennium initiative.

FALL 1997, WASHINGTON, DC: 

REGULATORY REVISION

The revision of the regulations that implement

Section 106 of NHPA was the major topic of the

Council’s 1997 fall business meeting. Held October

24 at the Council’s Washington, DC, headquarters,

the meeting focused on formally adopting regulations to submit to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for interagency review. The fall meeting also gave members a chance to consider modifications the Regulations Task Force put forth to

address recommendations received from Indian

tribes. At issue was the role of Indian tribes and

Native Hawaiian organizations in Section 106 consultation, particularly when undertakings affected

properties of religious or cultural significance located on or off tribal lands. Changes in the Section 106

review process resulting from regulatory revisions

are discussed on pages 31-33.

The Regulations Task Force, chaired by Council

Chairman Slater, included Native Hawaiian member

Raynard C. Soon, Honolulu, Hawaii; the Secretary of

Transportation, represented by Joseph F. Canny; the

National Park Service, represented by Katherine H.

Stevenson; the National Conference of State Historic

Preservation Officers, represented by Judith E. Bittner;

and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, represented by Richard Moe. The draft regulation was

submitted to OMB on November 27, 1997.

Suburban Sprawl

A major challenge facing public policy now and into

the new millennium, the growing problem of suburban sprawl received substantial attention. As many

incoming Section 106 cases illustrate, the quality of

life in the Nation’s communities is being placed

under increasing stress by development pressures,

and historic properties, a key component of a 

community’s character, are increasingly at risk. 

In a followup report to the membership, Council staff

explained that the Section 106 review process can only

do so much to correct problems associated with sprawl.

In many cases, development is privately financed, and

the Federal role is limited to a permit or approval. These

types of cases present entirely different demands than

those where the Federal role is more substantial and

direct. Frequently, the review process is initiated long

after the project has gathered support from the local

government, which through its zoning and land-use

I

mproving the national historic preservation program with special emphasis

on Federal stewardship of the Nation’s historic properties was our focus for 1998 and 1999. On the

eve of a new century and a new millennium, it seemed only prudent to assess the Federal Government’s

historic preservation legacy, and the Council’s leadership role within the Federal preservation 

community uniquely suited us for the task.

As suburbanization accelerates, historic properties, a key component 

in defining community character, are increasingly at risk. Here, historic

Tree Hill Farm stands uneasy watch over Richmond, Virginia.
authorities plays the most influential governmental role

in directing growth. Informed local decision-making is

the key ingredient in smart growth, but there is an

important Federal role, and Section 106 review–if carried out thoughtfully and strategically–can help foster

better decisions by Federal agencies.

SPRING 1998, MIAMI, FLORIDA: 

PRESERVING THE RECENT PAST

The spring meeting in Miami, Florida, March 12-13,

capitalized on Miami’s identity as a 20th-century city.

Against that backdrop, Council members observed

some of the challenges Federal historic preservation

will face in the future. These include shifting regional

demographic patterns, increasing commercial and

public interest in reuse of previously developed residential land and brownfields, and continuing change

in the employment market within a global economy.

In the context of this culturally diverse city, members

confronted the implications of increasing community

disassociation from the physical remnants of the past.

They toured Miami Edison Middle School, a facility

that serves an immigrant community with which it has

no historical affiliation, and the Tower Theater in

Little Havana, an example of how the historic meaning and value of local landmarks can be preserved

when historic neighborhood populations are displaced. Traveling through the Art Deco District in

Miami Beach, members contemplated

how to deal with 

the preservation of

the recent past and

how to ensure that

the architectural

and design value of

such resources is not

overlooked or dismissed because they

are not “old.” 

California Route 710

Future-oriented issues percolated through the next

day’s business meeting, held at the David W. Dyer

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse. Members first

worked on developing the Council’s formal response

to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)

proposed California Route 710 Freeway gap-closure

project, including the possible referral of the case to

the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). One

of the most controversial Section 106 cases in

Council history, the project involves the construction

of 4.5 miles of freeway to connect the Long Beach

Freeway with the Pasadena Freeway, thus completing

the Los Angeles Freeway system. The project would

affect six major historic districts. 

The Council’s

primary concern

was the magnitude of the project’s impact on

the historic properties and, ever

since Section 106

review was initiated in the early

1970s, we have

used every means

at our disposal to

obtain further

FHWA consideration of those concerns: Chairman’s

letter (1983); panel report (1984); and formal comments to the Secretary of Transportation following a

public hearing (1989). In those comments, the Council

expressed the belief that the impacts on historic properties far outweighed the projected benefits of the 

completed freeway. 

In 1993, the Council determined that the only

avenue remaining to impress historic preservation

concerns on FHWA was to refer the matter to CEQ,

whose referral process provides a means of resolving

interagency disagreement concerning proposed

major Federal actions that might cause unsatisfactory environmental effects. In response to this action,

CEQ referred the project back to FHWA, urging it

to work with the Council and other parties to identify and inventory historic properties in the project

area and develop a “low build” alternative that was

technically feasible.

FHWA completed those tasks in 1997 and put forth

another proposal identified as the “Depressed

Meridian Variation Alternative Reduced with Shift,”

which provided for depressing 85 percent of the freeway and relocating dozens of historic structures above

six cut-and-cover tunnels. While the revised proposal

significantly reduced the amount of direct and immediate impacts on historic properties, preservation concerns remained. Specifically, the proposal did not

Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 2 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Miami Edison Middle School in

Florida, a National Register property,

serves an immigrant populations with

no historical ties to the facility.

The proposed 4.5-mile extension of

California’s Route 710 would affect 

six major historic districts in Pasadena 

containing about 200 historic properties

such as this one.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 3 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

FIGURE 1. CHAIRMAN SLATER REFERS CALIFORNIA FREEWAY

CASE TO PRESIDENT CLINTON

Calling the proposed extension of California State Route 710 “one of the most important historic

preservation cases ever to come before the Council,” on March 20, 1998, Council Chairman

Cathryn Slater asked President Clinton to carefully consider the project’s devastating effects on historic properties. The project, which involves construction of 4.5 miles of freeway to connect the Long

Beach Freeway with the Pasadena Freeway and close a gap in the Los Angeles Freeway system, would

impact six major historic districts, including Markham Place, Pasadena Avenue, Prospect Circle,

South of Mission, Buena Vista, and the Shoreline Villa Tract. Together, these districts contain 188

contributing historic properties, in addition to 12 structures individually listed in the National

Register of Historic Places.

In making the request to the President–the first in the Council’s 32-year history–Chairman Slater conveyed comments on the project adopted by the membership at its March 13, 1998, business meeting

in Miami, Florida. Those comments, addressed to Rodney Slater, Secretary of Transportation,

acknowledged FHWA’s efforts to lessen the freeway gap closure’s harmful effects but concluded that

such damage to historic resources could not be adequately mitigated; the loss of so many historic

resources was “unacceptable.” 

“Insertion of a depressed freeway, removal of mature vegetation, relocation of houses, severing of

through streets, construction of sound walls, and the introduction of noise and visual intrusions, will

all irreparably alter and degrade these communities,” the Council concluded. The comments to the

Secretary of Transportation represented the fourth time the Council had formally spoken out against

the project since Section 106 review was initiated in 1983.

The March 1998 review focused on FHWA’s most recent proposal, the “Depressed Meridian Variation

Alternative Reduced with Shift,” which provided for depressing 85 percent of the freeway and relocating dozens of historic structures above six “cut-and-cover” tunnels. The Council expressed skepticism regarding the likely success of such an approach, citing concern for the loss of critical landscape

features and other character-defining attributes, in addition to the difficulty of restoring the integrity

of the original historic districts. 

In concluding its comments to Secretary Slater, the Council recommended that the project not be

approved unless a different alternative could be found–one that avoids such massive destruction of

historic properties. Toward that end, the Council urged FHWA to undertake further development and

independent testing of the “low-build” alternative.

President Clinton responded to Chairman Slater’s request on April 8, 1998, directing the Secretary

of Transportation to give serious consideration to the Council’s recommendations in reaching his

final decision about the 710 project. Five days later, the Chairman heard from the Administrator of

FHWA that the local and regional benefits of the 710 project outweighed adverse impacts to historic

properties and mature vegetation. FHWA would move forward with the new construction.

The City of Pasadena subsequently petitioned for a preliminary injunction against the proposed 

710 freeway, the status of which is summarized on page 21.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 4 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

THE WHITE HOUSE MILLENNIUM PROGRAM

Led by the First Lady, the White House Millennium Program is a multi-year initiative to mark the end

of the 20th century and the beginning of the new millennium. The program will celebrate the accomplishments of this American century, recognize and initiate projects, and engage every sector of society in conveying our rich heritage to future generations. Taking “Honor the Past–Imagine the Future”

as its overall theme, the program calls upon States, communities, nonprofit organizations, Federal

agencies, and all citizens to participate in meaningful activities that strengthen our democracy,

improve communities, and give lasting gifts to the future.

One of the best ways to imagine the future is to preserve what we value of our past, and the “Save

America’s Treasures” program, one aspect of the White House initiative, helped make that possible

on a national scale. A public-private partnership dedicated to the celebration and preservation of our

historic and cultural legacy, in 1999 Save America’s Treasures made available some $30 million in

Federal matching grants to address the most urgent preservation needs of some of our Nation’s most

significant historic sites and collections. Among them were Manhattan Project buildings at Los

Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico; Cliff Dwellings at Mesa Verde National Park in

Colorado; and Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania.

Council Chairman Cathryn Slater and historic preservation expert member Bruce D. Judd, FAIA, 

represented the Council in the Save America’s Treasures program at the leadership level. Executive

Director John M. Fowler and Mr. Judd served as jurors for the Federal preservation grants.

address the project’s effects on the long-term viability

and integrity of the affected historic districts. The

relocation of historic structures, street closings, loss of

mature trees and vegetation, and protracted construction would diminish the significant qualities of an

entire historic community. 

After a report from a panel of members who had

toured the proposed route and held a public meeting in Pasadena in early February 1998 and a presentation by FHWA to balance the perspective, the

Council decided to issue strong comments against

the project to Secretary of Transportation Rodney

Slater–the fourth time over the past 15 years that

the Council has taken such a position. In a related

action, members voted not to renew a previous

referral of the project to CEQ and, instead,

expressed concerns directly to President Clinton

(see page 3).

The Council’s Contribution to 

the White House Millennium Program

In response to the Administration’s invitation to

Federal agencies to participate in the White House

Millennium Program (see sidebar), in Miami we

considered ways in which Council expertise could

be best utilized to advance historic preservation in

the 21st century. Since heritage conservation lay at

the heart of the Administration’s initiative, the

Council looked for an opportunity to tie that 

initiative explicitly to the national historic preservation program. Our current focus on Federal program improvement suggested an obvious direction:

an examination of the reasons behind prominent

preservation successes and the causes of failure, culminating in specific recommendations to improve

the Federal Government’s participation and investment in historic preservation into the next century.

Architect Friedrich St. Florian presents a model of the proposed World

War II Memorial at the Council’s summer 1998 meeting in Alexandria,

Virginia. Preservation experts Arthur Q. Davis, FAIA, and Bruce D.

Judd, FAIA, represented the Council in subsequent discussions.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 5 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

For maximum impact, members decided that those

recommendations should be targeted to the

President and Congress. They voted to seek additional funding from the Office of Management and

Budget to proceed with the study.

SUMMER 1998, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA:

REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

How best to implement our new regulations upon

OMB approval was the subject of discussion at the

Council’s summer meeting in Alexandria, Virginia,

June 25-26, 1998. Members reviewed a proposed

regulations implementation plan that focused on

three actions areas: distribution, training, and guidance. The Council’s Web site would be the centerpiece of this important initiative, although printed

informational materials would be made available to

those without Internet access.

The plan provided for a basic package of information to be posted on the Web site simultaneous with

publication of the final rule. Printed materials would

then be distributed to a range of groups. With initial

notification in place, emphasis would shift toward

enhancing the Web site with an interactive flow chart

and a dynamic question and answer page. The former would permit users to walk through the revised

Section 106 process by responding to a series of

questions, while the latter would enable users to ask

questions about the review process and receive

answers tailored to their needs. 

Educational Outreach

Targeted educational efforts figured prominently in

the implementation plan. People familiar with

Section 106 review, as well as people new to the

process, would need to learn how to use our revised

regulations; so would specific user groups such as

Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations.

At the June meeting, the Council proposed to hold

ten or more free public transitional briefings across

the country for experienced users and revise the

introductory training course, “Introduction to

Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law,” to

reflect the new regulations. The course, offered in

cooperation with the University of Nevada-Reno,

would be held in locations nationwide.

Over the long term, users would need continuing

guidance and policy interpretations regarding the

new regulations, and the June plan identified four

priorities: a citizen’s guide to the Section 106 review

process and guidance on the treatment of archeological properties, tribal involvement in Section 106,

and the coordination of Section 106 with the environmental reviews conducted under the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

New Regulations Bring New Opportunities

New regulations provide the Council with an opportunity to redefine our role in the Section 106 review

process, and at the June meeting members set forth

some guidelines. Since we will no longer review routine cases but retain the authority to enter into the

process when it is necessary, it seemed only logical to

develop criteria to guide Council involvement. The

Council must ask first if there has been a good faith

effort in consultation and, if so, have the agency and

the SHPO reached an impasse? Will Council participation help promote historic values? Is the affected

property listed on a national or State endangered list?

Does the case advance program or policy initiatives? 

Even if the particular case meets these criteria;

however, the Council may decide not to participate. Circumstances that might preclude our

involvement include projects that have been

already initiated and thus make Council participation unproductive. Public concerns might be unrelated to historic preservation, or the case might not

fit into the existing Council work plan. 

Criteria for Council involvement are noted on page 32.

Defining the Council’s Millennium Contribution

We devoted a special session to better defining the

Council’s contribution to the White House

Millennium Program. Held at the Mount Vernon

conference center June 25, the session gave members

an opportunity to discuss possible activities. 

After considerable

discussion, members

endorsed developing

a printed report

containing policy

recommendations to

the President and

Congress. Although

the subject remained

unspecified, they

suggested that the

report be built

A tour of Mt. Vernon, the Virginia 

home of George Washington, capped 

the Council’s special session on defining

its millennium contribution.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 6 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

around current issues and themes in preservation

that are likely to persist into the 21st century. The

scope of the report was contingent upon receipt 

of additional funding through the Council’s 

annual appropriation. 

A members task force was appointed to direct the

effort and investigate possible topics for the report.

Task force members included historic preservation

experts James K. Huhta, Ph.D., Murfreesboro,

Tennessee; chairman, Arva Moore Parks McCabe,

Miami, Florida; and Bruce D. Judd, FAIA, San

Francisco, California. The Environmental Protection

Agency, represented by Richard E. Sanderson, and

the National Trust for Historic Preservation, represented by Peter Brink, completed the task force. 

FALL 1998, SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO:

FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP OF

HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Federal stewardship of historic properties came to

the fore at the 1998 fall meeting in Santa Fe, New

Mexico. Over the course of November 5-6, Council

members met with the Governor of the Pueblo of

Jemez, Tribal Council members, and staff to share

information about the pueblo’s state-of-the-art cultural resource management program as a background for a general discussion of better ways to

involve Indian tribes in consultation and Federal

project planning. The Council also considered

preservation issues within the Department of Energy

(DOE) and developed recommendations to the

Secretary of Energy and the Director of Los Alamos

National Laboratory (see Figure 2, page 7); explored

a possible Presidential directive on Federal stewardship; and decided to narrow the focus of the report

proposed at the spring meeting to Federal stewardship of historic properties as a complement to the

White House Millennium Program. 

Members also voted to nominate the Civilian

Conservation Corps for a Presidential Millennium

Award for design excellence in architecture and 

engineering (see Figure 3, page 9).

DOE Preservation Challenges

DOE faces a tight squeeze when it comes to funding

historic preservation, agency officials told the

Council. Unless historic preservation activities are

specifically included in Federal budgets annually, in

its view finding money for preservation activities is

extremely difficult. Over the past five years, DOE

has undergone a strategic alignment that emphasizes core missions such as defense programs and

environmental restoration at the expense of ancillary activities. In this context, historic preservation

threatens to divert resources and may even conflict

with existing missions. 

There is also the problem of multiple uses of properties. Some have been used for different purposes over

the years. Particularly at DOE’s scientific laboratories, continuous additions and modifications to

accommodate changing research needs have significantly changed the original structures. Given these

changes, DOE asked what historic value could still

be ascribed to these facilities.

Mothballing issues arise when buildings are placed

in the “surveillance and maintenance” mode and

cleaned of any contents that could present a longterm hazard. After decontamination, such buildings

are generally boarded up and left to decay, or are

abandoned in place. Under these circumstances,

some extraordinary equipment has been lost

because it once contained a substance considered

hazardous, despite the fact that the equipment posed

no risk to the public. Council members grappled

with how these kinds of artifacts should be preserved for future generations in a cost-effective way. 

This is especially important when it comes to DOE’s

Manhattan Project and Cold War-era properties.

Because of the nature of the nuclear weapons production process, most of these projects are contaminated and some have been dismissed as “too contaminated.” DOE needs some commonsense building

restoration codes, so it can allow access to its historic

properties without having to spend millions in

restoration costs, if contamination is contained and

holds no reasonable risk to the public. 

Neither does any incentive exist for discriminating

among DOE properties to identify those that are historically important and should be preserved.

Currently, DOE contractors receive award fees for

each building they take down. A bonus for leaving

buildings with historic value standing and finding

alternative uses for them should be considered.

DOE’s lack of partnerships with other Federal agencies, State and local communities, and academic

institutions was also cited as an impediment.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 7 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

FIGURE 2. PRESERVATION OF MANHATTAN PROJECT AND COLD WAR HISTORIC

PROPERTIES, LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY, LOS ALAMOS, NM 

In conjunction with the Council’s 1998 fall business meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico, members toured

Los Alamos National Laboratory, a Department of Energy property near Los Alamos, New Mexico, associated with the production of atomic weaponry. There they gained an opportunity to observe firsthand the

preservation challenges associated with one type of historic property–historically significant scientific and

technological facilities. 

Historically significant scientific and technological facilities present unique preservation challenges.

Defined as properties that meet the criteria for inclusion in the National Register for the contributions they

made or the role they played in the development and achievements of American science, technology, and

industry, such properties may include the equipment itself or the facility where it was built or used. In the

case of properties associated with the Manhattan Project and the Cold War, such as Los Alamos National

Laboratory, the development, research, and testing of weaponry required a high degree of security and use

of volatile and radioactive materials. 

Many of the buildings, equipment, and processes used to develop such weapons remain classified, and

parts of some sites are contaminated; concerns about security and contamination frequently circumscribe

the range of preservation options available when the historic significance of such properties is being evaluated or when plans are made to remove or modify them. An additional complication is the belief among

many scientists and property managers that historic designation will turn their laboratories into museums,

halting development or modification of laboratory equipment. 

Many structures and facilities at Los Alamos are already part of the Los Alamos Laboratory National

Historic Landmark; others have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register. As part of

the visit, Council members toured some of the properties, including the “V Site,” the wooden buildings

where scientists worked on the Trinity device; the Omega water boiler reactor building; and the concrete

bowl designed to recover plutonium dispersed during atomic bomb tests. At the conclusion of the tour,

members met in historic Fuller Lodge, the original dining hall and social center for Manhattan Project personnel, to hear the Department of Energy’s perspective on site management and discuss ways to meet

preservation challenges and make the most of these exceptional resources.

In examining available options for site stewardship that would balance the unique character of these sites

with the need for public access, preservation, and interpretation, the Council considered such issues as:

• How can historic significance be conveyed to the general public when many facilities are contaminated or

inaccessible to visitors?

• How can historic values be protected in light of budgetary pressures on DOE to reduce costs at facilities?

• How can DOE’s most significant properties be identified and their preservation planned for?

• What kinds of treatments could be utilized to better inform the public about DOE’s history and the 

history of atomic research?

The tour and a subsequent briefing informed a series of recommendations the Council submitted to the

Secretary of Energy on November 18, 1998. In a letter from Chairman Slater, the Council proposed the

development of a Council-DOE partnership to better educate departmental staff; streamline internal

preservation procedures, particularly when historic properties are in secured areas and/or must be

decontaminated; develop guidance on alternatives for properties scheduled for demolition, including

increasing the use of museums and other public outreach mechanisms; and help make the application

of environmental standards sensitive to historic preservation concerns. 

As a direct result of the Council’s initiative, the Department of Energy made a firm financial commitment

to stabilize the V site.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 8 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

At the time of the fall meeting, the Department of

Energy had taken action to improve stewardship. On

October 23, 1998, Secretary of Energy Bill

Richardson established an agency-wide “corporate

board” on historic preservation to help meet NHPA

requirements more effectively. The board was also

charged with making recommendations as to how

best to preserve DOE’s history, both in writing and

through the stewardship of buildings and other historic properties and equipment, and with reviewing

related resource requirements and potential new

funding needs. In Santa Fe, the Council commended

this effort and offered to assist DOE with special

training and guidance.

We also noted our past work on many of these issues.

A special report was prepared at the request of

Congress in 1990. Balancing Historic Preservation

Needs with the Operation of Highly Technical and

Scientific Facilities suggested answers to some of

DOE’s questions about meeting its responsibilities.

Presidential Memorandum

DOE’s concerns, as well as its responsive initiative,

underscored the important contribution Federal

agencies can make toward preserving our heritage

through responsible stewardship. Members discussed

ways to promote a similar response from other 

agencies with historic properties under their jurisdiction. At Santa Fe, members voted to explore development of a Presidential Memorandum to establish

stewardship of Federal

historic properties as

policy and create a

“Heritage Stewardship

Working Group” to

encourage effective

conservation and management of Federal

historic properties. 

The working group

would be comprised of

policy-level representatives of Federal agencies that manage real

property. It would 

be chaired by the

Council’s Chairman

and operated as a component of the Council.

Representatives would

be designated by the appropriate Federal agency heads

and be in a position to influence agency management

policies and decisions. Representatives from the

National Park Service’s Heritage Preservation Services

and the National Center for Preservation Technology

and Training would also be members.

The Council suggested

that the working group

be charged with disseminating information on

successful management

policies, techniques, and

technologies for effective stewardship of historic properties; identifying challenges and

impediments to proper

stewardship and possible solutions; identifying

Federal historic property

stewardship need and

opportunities for private-sector solutions

through the development of new technologies and processes; and

identifying special training for Federal historic property managers. The

working group would report annually to the Council

on an individual agency basis on noteworthy examples of successful stewardship and threats to historic

properties under Federal jurisdiction.

Federal Stewardship Report

At the June 1998 meeting, members agreed that

the Council’s principal contribution to the White

House Millennium Program would be a special

report to the President and Congress, and

appointed a task force to direct the effort. In

Santa Fe, the task force recommended that the

report concentrate on Federal stewardship of historic properties. The Council had already accumulated significant information in this area

through its business meeting focus and could

leverage that into policy recommendations for the

new millennium. Because members agreed that the

public should be involved in helping to formulate

those recommendations, they voted to use the

Council Web site to engage a broad spectrum of

the public with a relatively small expenditure 

of resources. 

Established by President Franklin 

D. Roosevelt in 1933, the Civilian

Conservation Corps helped institutionalize the rustic style in parks and

forests across America through its

architectural and engineering projects.

The Council held its fall 1998 

business meeting at the National

Park Service’s Southwest Regional

Headquarters in Santa Fe, New

Mexico. The circa 1939 building,

built by the Civilian Conservation

Corps, was the largest adobe office

building in the Nation when 

it was completed.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 9 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

FIGURE 3: COUNCIL NOMINATES CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORPS

FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL MILLENNIUM AWARD

The Council conducted its fall 1998 business meeting in the Southwest Regional Headquarters

Building of the National Park Service in Santa Fe, New Mexico. This National Historic Landmark

structure, the only Regional Office building designed and built specifically for the National Park

Service and the largest adobe office building in the Nation when it was completed in 1939, was constructed by Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) Company 833. In recognition of this signal example

of Federal stewardship, in April 1999 the Council nominated the CCC for the Presidential Millennium

Award for design excellence in architecture and engineering. The nomination was endorsed by the

Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Army, the Department of Labor, and the National

Park Service. Portions are excerpted below. 

About the CCC

Forged in the crucible of the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (1933-1942) stands

as one of the most popular and successful programs of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

A national experiment aimed at “saving” human and natural resources, during its nine-year history

the CCC targeted that portion of the American population at greatest risk–unemployed, unmarried,

generally unskilled young men between the ages of 18 and 25–for Emergency Conservation Work on

public lands. In Federal and State forests and parks in 48 States and the territories of Alaska, Hawaii,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, Roosevelt’s “tree army” fought fires, planted trees, laid foot trails,

graded roads, constructed bridges, and built some 40,000 buildings for the National Park Service

alone. With a base of more than 4,500 different camps scattered across the country, the CCC laid the

foundation for America’s public landscape.

Many CCC building and engineering projects meet the criteria for listing in the National Register and have

been so designated. Our Millennium Award nomination sought a more public arena for celebrating the

CCC’s creation of a solid, esthetically pleasing infrastructure for our Nation’s public spaces.

CCC Program

Although the CCC was relatively short-lived–it was terminated on the eve of World War II in the drive

toward war preparedness–its impact on 20th-century American society was profound. Its social and

economic benefits included putting 2.5 million youths to work in a rugged environment, teaching

them self-respect along with highly marketable skills. The CCC afforded financial relief to countless

families, as enrollees were required to send most of their stipend home; strengthened communities

through the employment of individual local residents, both skilled and unskilled; and produced graduates who went on to become exemplary employees, especially in the building trades. Moreover, the

CCC demonstrated its usefulness as a training and national preparedness program: Graduates made

outstanding war production workers and excellent officer material.

CCC Achievements

The CCC’s achievements are equally impressive. During its brief existence, the CCC salvaged millions of acres of endangered forest and crop lands; enrollees completed work estimated at a present

and potential value of more than $1.7 billion in just the areas of reforestation and soil erosion.

Though the majority of CCC work centered on conservation of natural resources–project activities

included watershed restoration, timberstand improvement, range betterment, fire protection and

suppression, and forest disease and pest control–the CCC also made important contributions to

20th-century architecture and engineering. Outstanding for their naturalistic design and execution in

addition to their enduring quality, CCC structures provide Americans with a tangible link to one of

the most challenging periods in their collective history.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 10 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

The centerpiece of the Web initiative would be a

bulletin board to facilitate a conversation among

our constituency. We would post topics on the bulletin board for public comment and interested

members of the public would speak to the topics

via the Web site. Discussion would begin when

other members of the public replied to the first set

of responses. Participants

would be encouraged to

return to the discussion

forum regularly to check

out new developments. 

For maximum impact, members targeted individuals

with some familiarity with

historic preservation issues

as our audience and identified the topics “Responding

to Future Preservation

Challenges,” “Caring for

America’s Past,” and “Using

the Past to Enrich Our

Lives” as starting points.

The Internet discussion was

launched in February 1999.

WINTER 1999, HONOLULU, HAWAII:

MILITARY STEWARDSHIP OF

HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Native Hawaiian concerns and military historic

preservation issues framed the spring meeting in

Honolulu, Hawaii. Over the course of February 10-

12, Council members met with Native Hawaiian representatives to learn about Hawaiian culture and

practices and how they influence cultural resource

management decisions. As illustrated over the course

of the meeting, Native Hawaiians define “historic

properties” and “consultation” within their own cultural context. Overall, connections between the natural, cultural, and spiritual landscape, including 

traditional and continuing use of historic resources,

must be considered. This includes flora, fauna, 

natural features, viewsheds, and other intangibles.

The oral nature of their culture can also make it difficult for Native Hawaiians to participate fully in

Federal planning and review processes that rely on

written documentation and communications. At the

Honolulu meeting, the Council agreed that both

members and staff should be further trained to better understand these issues. Members also voted to

write Federal agencies to encourage them to create

liaisons to Native Hawaiians and to involve the community. The Council subsequently received positive

responses from several agencies, including the

National Park Service (NPS) and the Department of

Agriculture, indicating that they either had liaisons

in place or were willing to establish such positions. 

Army Stewardship of Historic Properties

The vast number and diversity of historic properties

in the Army’s inventory reflects nearly all periods in

the Nation’s history. From archeological resources

to buildings from the Cold War era, the Army is

responsible for at least 12,000 known historic

structures and 40,000 identified archeological

properties, as well as scores of sacred sites. Army

properties include a number of National Historic

Landmarks (NHLs), some of them historic districts

with hundreds of individual contributing elements.

As identification efforts continue across Army

installations, the numbers will undoubtedly

increase. The continued use of many of these properties has major implications for Army historic

preservation efforts.

In addition to the challenges of day-to-day operations and long-term management, the Army operates

under a number of important statutory and policy

constraints that affect its mission and how well it can

use, care for, and manage historic properties. While

some of the constraints can be controlled or

addressed by the Army, others go beyond the service. 

Rich in archeological resources, the Makua Military Reservation, an

area on the Hawaiian island of Oahu used for training maneuvers and

live ammunition fire training, points up Army challenges in caring for

historic properties located on active installations.

CCC architecture drew on 

vernacular architectural motifs.

Here, the design of the Museum 

and Visitor Center at Tumacacori

National Monument in Arizona, 

a National Historic Landmark, 

conveys the architectural sense

and history of the monument’s

prime resource: the Tumacacori 

Mission Complex.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 11 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

An understanding of the potential impact of these

constraints on mission objectives is essential to

examining existing programs and recommending

changes to accomplish cultural resource management

goals and objectives more effectively and efficiently. 

Discussion of the Army’s program focused on larger

stewardship issues with the goal of fostering the ongoing partnership between the Council and the Army in

addressing strategies for better military planning and

management of fragile historic and archeological

resources. The range of historic properties the Army

manages and the particular challenges posed by active

military installations was illustrated by visits to Fort

Shafter, located in the greater Honolulu area and, at 94,

the oldest Army post in Hawaii; Schofield Barracks,

constructed in 1909 on what was originally Hawaiian

crown lands to provide a base for the Army’s mobile

defense of Oahu; and Makua Military Reservation, a

4,190-acre training area on Oahu used for training

maneuvers and live ammunition fire training.

The Army believes it is constrained by a lack of funds

designated specifically for cultural resource management. Defense appropriation bills in each fiscal year

set line-item figures for military personnel, operations and maintenance, construction, procurement,

etc. Typically, funding for cultural resource management is drawn from military construction or operations and maintenance accounts as part of project

costs. Preservation budgets, therefore, are generally

low and could be diverted to other projects of higher priority by the installation commander. Low funding contributes to widespread deferred maintenance

of historic buildings and structures. 

The special constraints placed upon certain types of

military funding is another consideration. For example, there have been legislative limits on the amount

of money that can be spent in a given fiscal year on

general officer quarters. This set amount of funding

is generally insufficient to accomplish major rehabilitation or restoration, actions that are often necessary to reverse deferred maintenance problems.

Proposals to exceed the funding limit require 

congressional approval.

A number of programs, Army-driven and legislatively

directed, have strained the Army’s ability to adequately manage its historic properties. Since historic preservation is not clearly mission related, its benefits are

neither consistently articulated nor understood and

promoted by senior leadership. Moreover, the long

term value of historic properties is not widely understood Army-wide. While policies regarding historic

properties may have evolved, changes and new perspectives are not always communicated across and

down the chain of command.

The Council voted to aid and support the implementation of a preservation ethic throughout the Department

of Defense and other Federal departments.

Navy Stewardship of Cultural Resources

The look at Navy stewardship centered on the historic preservation challenges associated with a particular site, U.S. Naval Base Pearl Harbor where the

air attack by Japan on December 7, 1941, propelled

the United States into World War II. Designated an

NHL in recognition of

that attack and of the

over-arching historical

importance of Pearl

Harbor in the Pacific

through time, the Pearl

Harbor NHL District

consists of more than

1,200 buildings and

structures constructed

during the base’s 100-

year history. Among

these are the submerged remains of the

U.S.S. Arizona and the

U.S.S. Utah, and the U.S.S. Bowfin, one of a small

number of extant United States submarines from

World War II. The base also contains numerous

Native Hawaiian cultural sites, including traditional 

stone-walled fishponds used for aquaculture.

The sunken battleship U.S.S. Arizona, and a memorial structure spanning her mid-portion, remains the

most important historic property at Pearl Harbor.

Although the memorial is owned by the Navy and

located in the middle of a Navy base, NPS has the

responsibility for managing the memorial and its visitor’s center and museum. More than 1.5 million

people visit the memorial each year.

A new addition to Pearl Harbor is the U.S.S. Missouri,

best known as the site where General Douglas

MacArthur accepted Japan’s unconditional surrender

in Tokyo Bay. Following the Missouri’s final decommissioning in 1992, she remained mothballed for six

The sunken battleship U.S.S. Arizona,

and the Navy’s memorial to the ship, is

the most important historic property 

in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 12 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Council Membership Meetings

years in Bremerton, Washington, until the Navy

moved her to Pearl Harbor to facilitate creation of

the Battleship Missouri Memorial, an action guided

by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) executed

under Section 106 with the Council. The ship’s presence brings Pearl Harbor’s symbolic importance to

the history of World War II full circle. On January

29, 1999, the Missouri Memorial celebrated its

grand opening, 55 years to the day after the ship was

launched in 1944 at the Brooklyn Naval Yard.

Naval operation of Pearl Harbor is covered by a 1979

Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the Navy, the

Hawaiian State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO),

and the Council that has not been altered or amended

since its execution. This is increasingly problematic as

the Navy considers major new development at Ford

Island, located in the harbor at the base. Ford Island

contains buildings and structures associated with its

historic use as officer housing and a naval air station.

It was also the location of “Battleship Row” during

the 1941 attack. Runways and structures still bear

scars from the strafing and bombing. Traditionally

accessible only by ferry, a bridge between the island

and the mainland was opened last year. The bridge

will facilitate a proposed master plan that, as originally proposed, would include 600 homes for Navy 

personnel, a Navy museum, and other development. 

At the business meeting, the Council directed staff to

provide a study of the existing Pearl Harbor PA,

including the design, funding, and regulatory stages

of Ford Island. Members also voted to alert the

Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations

about the Council’s concerns about inappropriate

development of the island. 

Gathering Information for the 

Federal Stewardship Report

Finally, we unveiled a new, interactive section of the

Council’s Web site, ACHP Forum. A useful mechanism for gathering information and opinions for the

report on Federal stewardship, ACHP Forum invited Internet users to help clarify current historic

preservation challenges and identify Federal policy

and other actions to address these challenges in the

new century. Because our particular expertise

relates to the Federal Government’s role and its

effect on the preservation of America’s heritage, the

forum emphasized improvements at the Federal

level that might be achieved through executive and

legislative action. 

Initial discussion topics included:

• What are some of the major challenges to historic

preservation in the 21st century?

• Do historic resources within the scope of Federal

preservation efforts reflect the values of American

society?

• Should the Federal Government have stronger or

weaker laws to protect historic resources? 

• How can Federal help for preservation be

improved? and

• How can Federal property managers improve the

stewardship of publicly owned resources?

Coincident with its launch, ACHP Forum was

announced to more than 2,000 print and electronic

media outlets. 

SUMMER 1999, WASHINGTON, DC: GSA

STEWARDSHIP OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS

The General Services Administration’s (GSA) stewardship of historic Federal buildings provided the

organizing point for the 1999 spring meeting. Held

June 24-25 in Washington, DC, the meeting gave the

Council a chance to examine GSA’s new approach to

historic preservation, which relies on upgrading

existing building elements where possible rather than

expensive total makeovers, and supplementing

Federal tax dollars with private funds. 

GSA set out its comprehensive historic preservation

strategy in Held in Public Trust, a study that examined

its stewardship responsibilities in a new light–one that

Largely undisturbed since World War II, Ford Island’s many historic

properties must be addressed by the Navy in making plans for 

redevelopment around Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
Council Membership Meetings

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 13 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

integrated them better into the agency’s businesslike

approach to providing and maintaining Federal workspace. The study included suggestions for better managing GSA’s historic assets to ensure their viability and

attractiveness within the agency’s funding limitations

and emphasized the value of careful and appropriate

daily maintenance and repair of historic properties. 

Prior to the formal business meeting, Council members

toured local buildings managed by GSA, including the

NHL General Post Office, the Ariel Rios Building, and

the Wilson Building. These properties illustrate GSA’s

commitment to putting the Government’s architectural

treasures to use in the new millennium while stretching

dollars available to renovate Federal buildings. 

Millennium Initiative: 

Federal Stewardship Report

The Council commended Held in Public Trust as an

example of what we hope to stimulate governmentwide with our own examination of the Federal

Government as steward of the Nation’s past. Using

GSA’s report as a reference point, we endorsed 

several topic areas for further exploration: 

• the current Federal role in historic preservation;

• the Federal Government as leader, supporter, and

facilitator of preservation; and

• innovative approaches for meeting preservation

challenges in the public policy arena. 

Building a preservation ethic nationwide is critical;

Federal agencies must provide strong leadership by

example. Just because stewardship responsibilities

are in the law does not mean they are carried out

correctly, if at all. A clear connection needs to be

made with an agency’s mission and its corporate 

culture, as well as its history, where appropriate.

Improving Federal interaction with the local community is another aspect of the Council’s report on Federal

stewardship. Federal agencies need to seek new strategies to decide what historic resources are important

and to whom, including developing better mechanisms

to determine who and how to consult. Moreover, agencies should work to resolve potential conflicts over

resource protection and use. For example, the public

benefits of some large-scale preservation projects may

not be immediately apparent, such as the preservation

of 20th-century industrial facilities. In such cases,

preservation values need to be clearly articulated given

that the “buy in” by affected and concerned parties is

essential for the project to succeed. 

Section 106 Cases Spotlighted

Moving from the general to the specific, the Council

turned to individual examples of Federal agency stewardship of historic properties. At Gettysburg National

Military Park, the National Park Service proposed to

remove the 1960s-era Cyclorama Building, home of the

panoramic painting depicting Pickett’s Charge, to restore

the historic landscapes of the Union battle lines of July

2-3, 1863, thus providing better public understanding of

the course of the battle. The Cyclorama painting would

be restored and relocated to a new visitor center. 

The importance of the historic battlefield prompted

Chairman Slater to appoint a members’ working

group to provide policy guidance. The working

group responded with a report. Presented at the

Washington, DC, meeting, A Problem of Common

Ground sought to establish priorities among the

competing historic resources by weighing at the highest policy and philosophical level the values each

resource represented. It concluded that the NPS plan

should go forward, subject to provisions of an agreement to be developed among the park, the Council,

the Pennsylvania SHPO, and other interested parties.

Staff also reported on the Navy’s closure and disposal

of the Philadelphia Naval Hospital, which would result

in the demolition of all the structures within the complex, including one of the finest Art Deco buildings in

the city; the ongoing consultation for the projected

Imperial Mine in Southern California; and the redevelopment of Ford Island in Pearl Harbor. These and

other cases emphasizing the Government’s stewardship

responsibilities are discussed beginning on page 33.

GSA’s stewardship responsibilities include providing and maintaining

Federal workspace in historic buildings across the Nation. The Ariel Rios

Building, shown here, which houses the Environmental Protection Agency

offices, is a critical component of Washington, DC’s, Federal Triangle.
PRESERVATION POLICY ACTIVITIES

Section II

Historic Lighthouse, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Preservation Policy Activities

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 15 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Report to Congress on Alternatives for

Implementing Section 106: An Assessment

The Council’s 1998 study of alternatives for

implementing Section 106 of NHPA found that the

fundamental elements of the current Section 106

process are sound and do not require radical

change. Moreover, the concept of consultation

leading to a binding agreement should be retained. 

Undertaken in response to a directive by 

the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations, the assessment was part of our

1996 reauthorization and analyzed alternatives

for modifying the regulatory process for addressing impacts of Federal actions on NHLs. It also

considered alternatives for the future promulgation and oversight of implementing regulations

for Section 106 of NHPA and examined possible

statutory changes related to the content and

implementation of Section 106 and Section 110(f)

of NHPA, the latter of which addresses the 

protection of NHLs. 

The report asked the following questions:

• Should the fundamental nature of the current

Section 106 review process be significantly

changed?

• Is it preferable that the Council’s “reasonable

opportunity to comment” continue to be defined

as consultation leading to execution of a

Memorandum of Agreement?

• Should there be one set of uniform, Governmentwide procedures covering the implementation of

Section 106, or should there be more than one procedural and review system that distinguishes

between Federal and federally assisted actions or

between undertakings on public lands and on 

private property?

• Within the existing range of implementation alternatives, are there any requiring legislative changes

that are desirable to explore?

Findings and Recommendations

Drawing heavily on the information gathered

through our ongoing regulatory revisions, as well

as previous studies, testimony related to the

Council’s reauthorization, and discussions with the

National Park Service, we found that considerable

flexibility was built into the existing and the proposed regulations for implementing Section 106. A

single, uniform set of procedures that could be

used throughout the Government continued to be

desirable, while the concept of “flexible application” in the administration of our regulations, coupled with existing mechanisms for agencies to

develop alternative ways to implement Section

106, provided ample opportunity for tailoring and

streamlining the review process. 

The Council further noted that the review process

could be improved operationally and that developing implementing guidance and ensuring adequate funding and staffing for agency historic

preservation programs would be a major step in

that direction. 

These findings prompted the Council to submit a

number of recommendations for consideration by

Congress and others, including amending NHPA to

permit Federal agencies to delegate their Section 106

responsibilities as part of an overall program delegation or approval; monitoring the success of Section

106-NEPA coordination; and adjusting the composition of the Council to better represent local interests.

They are summarized in Figure 4, page 17. 

Preparation of Report to Congress on Alternatives

for Implementing Section 106 was overseen by a

task force of Council members including Arva

Moore Parks McCabe, Miami, Florida, chair;

Native Hawaiian member Raynard C. Soon,

Honolulu, Hawaii; preservation experts Bruce D.

Judd, FAIA, San Francisco, California, and Parker

Westbrook, Washington, Arkansas; and the

Environmental Protection Agency, represented by

Richard E. Sanderson. The report was submitted

to Congress May 22, 1998, and posted at

www.achp.gov/alternatives.html.

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established as national 

policy the use of historic properties to meet the needs of contemporary society and directed the

Federal Government to take the lead in translating that policy into tangible action.
LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Council’s efforts to strengthen historic preservation in 1998 and 1999 were not restricted to considering alternate ways to implement our regulations.

We advocated Federal tax policies that stimulate

reuse of historic buildings by the private sector; commented on legislative referrals from the Office of

Management and Budget; and consulted with our

preservation partners on pending legislation.

Highlights of legislative involvement during this

reporting period follow.

Increasing the Historic Preservation Fund

When NHPA created the national historic preservation program in 1966, it provided the organizational

structure and tools essential for a vital, effective

movement. A small but critical component of that

program was the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF),

which affords funding for several preservation entities, including SHPOs. 

The bulk of HPF monies, approximately $31 million

in FY 1999, goes directly to SHPOs and is matched

by States with non-Federal funds or in-kind contributions. These funds help SHPOs fulfill their roles as

directed by NHPA. (SHPOs administer the national

program at the State level; review National Register

nominations; consult on Federal tax incentive projects; provide technical support for historic properties

and programs; and consult with Federal agencies as

part of the Section 106 review process.) 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) also

have an important role in the Section 106 review

process and receive funding under the HPF. The

Council increasingly relies on SHPOs and THPOs

to reach consensus with Federal agencies on ways

to avoid or minimize harm to historic properties.

The majority of Section 106 review is conducted at

the State level; likewise, many tribes have a similar

role when Federal actions occur on tribal lands. 

The Council generally limits its reviews to complex

or controversial cases that would benefit from a

Council forum. The shift of emphasis from

Washington, DC, to the States was formalized in

the revised regulations governing the Section 106

review process. Adequate and predictable funding

for SHPOs and THPOs is necessary if the national

historic preservation program and the Council are

to succeed.

In 1998 and 1999, the Council strongly urged

Congress to appropriate $150 million for the HPF

to support its full authorized level for the first time

since it was created. In letters to selected members

of House and Senate Appropriations Committees,

we voiced our opinion that, based on our more

than 30 years of experience working with the HPF,

level funding was inadequate. The increased level

would provide higher levels of support for core

programs of States, Certified Local Governments,

and Tribal Grants, among others. Without continued and expanded support for the SHPO/THPO

role, the success of the national historic preservation program as a whole hangs in jeopardy. H.R.

701, introduced in 1999, contains such permanent

levels of funding.

Reauthorization of the Council and 

the Historic Preservation Fund

Authorized through FY 2000 in NHPA, as amended, the Council has been closely involved in the

evolution of two bills that would, among other

provisions, extend our authorization through FY

2005. H.R. 834 and its close parallel, S. 1434,

would amend NHPA to allow grants to the

National Trust for Historic Preservation; redefine

the exemption from Section 106 of NHPA for the

Capitol grounds; codify the principal provisions of

Executive Order 13006, “Locating Federal

Facilities on Historic Properties in our Nation’s

Central Cities;” and reauthorize the HPF–and the

Council–through FY 2005. We have twice 

provided testimony at hearings on these bills.

National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act

In the summer of 1998, both S. 1403 and H.R. 2970,

“National Lighthouse Preservation Act” bills, saw

committee action. S. 1403 was referred to the

Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands,

while its companion bill, H.R. 2970, was forwarded

to the full committee. During the 105th Congress,

neither bill saw further action. 

For more than a decade, the Council has worked

closely with the United States Coast Guard, the

National Conference of State Historic

Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), and individual

SHPOs to establish mechanisms for protection of

historic lighthouses that are surplus to Federal

needs. While supportive of both bills, we had suggested to the Committee on Resources that additional language be added to 1) ensure that any

Preservation Policy Activities

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 16 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION
Preservation Policy Activities

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 17 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

FIGURE 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON ALTERNATIVES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION

OF SECTION 106: SUMMARY OF COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS

The Council’s 1998 report to Congress recommended the following alternatives for the future promulgation and oversight of regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act:

Alternatives for future promulgation and oversight of regulations for implementing Section 106

• Responsibility: For Federal programs carried out by State, local, or tribal governments, consideration

should be given to amending NHPA to allow Federal agencies to delegate their Section 106 responsibilities to approved State, local, or tribal programs as part of an overall program delegation or

approval. The Council should be involved in reviewing such program delegations and commenting

on the Federal agency approval. The rights and responsibilities of applicants should continue to be

dealt with in agency-specific guidance and, where warranted by the program, in alternate procedures;

no statutory change for that purpose is warranted.

• Substitution: Considerable flexibility and incentives exist at the present time to promote the integration

of historic preservation requirements with other planning approval and resource protection requirements. However, the success or failure of attempts to coordinate the requirements of Section 106 with

procedures for the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as similar statutes, should be monitored,

and the Council should report on this issue to the President and Congress within three years of issuance

of its revised regulations. This should allow sufficient time to measure the success of coordination under

revised Section 106 regulations and to consider any possible recommendations for statutory changes.

• Oversight: Consideration should be given to amending NHPA, so that agencies act to internalize historic

preservation review more effectively. The Council also recommends that consideration be given to adjusting the composition of the Council to provide for organizational representation by the U.S. Conference

of Mayors, the National Governors’ Association, and/or the National Association of Counties, rather

than by individual gubernatorial or mayoral membership as it is presently required. This would give the

Council the benefit of more active participation and advice from State and local governments.

Alternatives to the existing review process for properties of national significance

• Protection and planning: Consideration should be given to amending NHPA to require Federal

agency cooperation and participation in mandated National Park Service and Council reporting and

review of threats to historic properties, including National Historic Landmarks. Additional funding

or changing priorities in existing Federal agency spending should be considered to help ensure 

adequate description, protection, and enhancement of threatened or neglected NHLs under Federal

jurisdiction and control.

• Identification and evaluation: A variety of options should be given serious thought in the future to

improve the consideration of NHLs and other nationally significant properties. Improvements are

needed in the timeliness and completeness of Federal planning activities as they relate to actions

affecting nationally significant properties. At a minimum, additional incentives or encouragement for

identifying and evaluating such properties before specific construction or other projects are under

development should be authorized for States, Federal agencies, and others in the form of targeted

grants programs, as well as for research and development of historic theme studies and resource

guides. The process of identifying and evaluating potential NHLs on certain public lands subject to

more intensive uses or development should be accelerated as a matter of national policy.
Preservation Policy Activities

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 18 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

modifications to transferred lighthouses be

reviewed by appropriate SHPOs prior to commencement of work and then again upon completion, and 2) require continued preservation and

monitoring after transfer from Federal ownership. 

Our involvement with historic lighthouses has

shown that SHPOs are an invaluable resource for

identifying nonprofit organizations with a proven

track record for management of historic properties, reviewing plans and specifications for rehabilitation of historic properties to ensure that they

meet the Secretary of Interior’s Historic

Preservation Standards, providing expertise on

preservation and

maintenance techniques, and monitoring compliance

with protective

conditions placed

on recipients of historic lighthouses.

We further recommended that the

Secretary of the

Interior be required

to consult with

SHPOs, rather than

simply being authorized to do so.

Requiring such

consultation would

ensure an appropriate State voice in

the process of lighthouse selection and

disposal.

United States Postal Service 

Decisions of the United States Postal Service

regarding Post Office relocation, closure, or alteration can profoundly affect districts and buildings

in the Nation’s communities, many of which contain historic properties. We were, therefore,

extremely interested in S. 556 and H.R. 670, “Post

Office Community Partnership” bills, which

would require community participation in Postal

Service decisions about the location and abandonment of postal facilities. More important, both

bills would require the Postal Service to follow the

same local zoning, planning, and land-use laws by

which other property owners must abide. 

Over the past several years, the Council has provided congressional staff with information

derived from our Section 106 review experience

with the Postal Service and participated in meetings on ways to advance passage of the two bills,

which are virtually identical. We also commented

on Postal Service amendments to 39 CFR Part

241, “Expansion, Relocation, and Construction

of New Post Offices” as a proposed rule. Similar

to the bills, the rule would involve communities

earlier and more substantively than has traditionally occurred. We voiced our opinion that the rule

did not go far enough, nor did it adequately

address the need for Postal Service adherence to

local zoning and planning rules. Unfortunately,

only some of our suggestions found their way into

the final rule.

Increasingly, towns and cities across the Nation are

voicing their dissatisfaction with the lack of community input and control over Postal Service decisions that impact the quality of their lives. A Post

Office is a community resource, not simply real

estate. In addition to its physical presence, a Post

Office also creates intangible benefits by providing

a meeting place and social nucleus. Frequently

located in downtown historic districts, Post Offices

complement surrounding businesses by providing

the critical mass necessary to drive a local economy.

Too often, when a Post Office closes or relocates,

the secondary impacts affect local businesses

adversely. The Council plans to continue working

Representative of small-town Federal Government architecture at 

its best, Easton, Pennsylvania’s, Main Post Office was slated for 

demolition. Citizens used the Section 106 review process to 

persuade the Postal Service to opt for rehabilitation.

For more than a decade, the Council 

has worked with the Coast Guard 

and other preservation organizations 

to establish mechanisms to protect 

historic lighthouses, such as this 

one at Aberdeen Proving Ground 

in Maryland, when they are 

determined excess to Federal needs.
Preservation Policy Activities

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 19 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

with congressional staff to secure passage of these

or similar bills that would make the Postal Service

more accountable to the communities it serves.

Construction of Cellular Towers in 

Rock Creek Park, Washington, DC

The Council took exception to the inclusion of

Amendment 1223 in S. 1283, the District of

Columbia appropriations bill for FY 2000 as passed

by the Senate. We urged the House to consider our

views when developing its version of the bill. The

amendment directed NPS to grant an application to

erect cellular antennae in Rock Creek Park in

Washington, DC. Because the action is nondiscretionary, it makes compliance with Section 106 and

the Council’s regulations moot. It would also significantly undermine the National Capitol Planning

Commission’s future role in the approval process for

wireless antennae projects.

The final version of the DC appropriations bill,

H.R. 3194, was signed by the President as Public

Law 106-113. Section 174, dealing with wireless

communications, specifically allows construction of

the two cell towers in Rock Creek Park. However,

it requires that in all future instances, the provisions

of NEPA, NHPA, and applicable State and local

laws will be met. This provides an important reaffirmation of appropriate environmental review as

part of such decisions. 

Protection of Paoli and Brandywine

Revolutionary War Battlefields

The principal advisor to the President and

Congress on historic preservation matters, the

Council offered strong support for H.R. 659,

which was subsequently signed into law as P.L.

106-86, “Pennsylvania Battlefields Protection Act

of 1999.” In a letter to the Subcommittee on

National Parks, Historic Preservation and

Recreation, Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, we urged passage of the bill for its

intended purpose of protecting both the Paoli and

Brandywine Revolutionary War Battlefields and

authorizing the Valley Forge Museum of the

American Revolution at Valley Forge National

Historic Park, all in Pennsylvania. 

We were well aware of the threats that confronted

these important sites from development throughout

Chester County. Under Section 106 of NHPA, the

Council had reviewed a number of Federal actions,

such as funding support for infrastructure improvements or issuance of permits under the Clean Water

Act, which were found to adversely affect the historic

qualities of the Brandywine Battlefield NHL District.

Section 106 review was able to help reduce the impact

of some of these projects, but local officials needed

considerably more support and assistance to develop

successful and sustained preservation strategies. H.R.

659 provided that much-needed support. 

SECTION 106 LITIGATION

As the following summary indicates, 1998-1999

court decisions regarding NHPA sometimes foreshadowed, and implicitly lent support to, many of

the changes now that were ultimately formalized in

our new regulations. The cases discussed below

also reflect the importance of Council contributions in resolving major preservation issues

throughout the country.

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service

Section 106 and NEPA violations surround a Forest

Service approval of a land exchange whereby a

large timber company would receive Forest Service

land containing the Huckleberry Divide Trail, a

National-Register eligible, traditional transportation route of significance to the Muckleshoot Tribe.

The Forest Service decided that the land exchange,

and the eventual destruction of the historic trail by

logging, would not constitute an adverse effect

since the trail would be recorded prior to the

exchange. The Forest Service based this determination on a provision under the superseded regulations that allowed turning an “adverse effect” into

a “no adverse effect” by preserving information of

the site through research.

Revolutionary War-era Brandywine Battlefield, an NHL, was 

threatened by the proposed construction of a new housing 

development within its boundaries.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed with the Forest

Service’s application of the regulations and clarified

that recording a historic resource that is of value

beyond “its potential contribution to archeological,

historical, or architectural research” is inadequate

and cannot support a “no adverse effect” determination. The revised regulations and the archeological guidance that accompanied them encompass the

general concept behind the court’s decision. Among

other things, the guidance makes it clear that the

destruction of sites that have value beyond the scientific data they may yield cannot be considered “no

adverse effects” merely because scientific methods

such as data recovery or recordation are used. The

decision also highlights the importance of Indian

tribes in the Section 106 process, particularly in

light of their special expertise regarding properties

of religious and cultural significance to them. These

ideas are now explicitly incorporated in the revised

Section 106 regulations.

City of Alexandria v. Slater

The recent decision of the D.C. Circuit, City of

Alexandria v. Slater, provided support to yet another policy now formalized in our new regulations.

The case involved, among other things, the Federal

Highway Administration’s compliance with Section

106 in the planning and construction of the muchneeded replacement of the Woodrow Wilson

Memorial Bridge. The Council, FHWA, and SHPOs

from the District of Columbia, Virginia, and

Maryland signed an MOA. The MOA set forth mitigation plans for several historic sites, while noting

that FHWA had not yet identified properties to be

used for “construction staging, dredge disposal,

wetland mitigation, or other ancillary activities”

during the period of the bridge’s construction. Such

ancillary activity sites are selected at the design stage

of large projects such as this one. The plaintiffs,

however, argued that FHWA had violated Section

106 by postponing the identification of sites to be

used for the ancillary activities until after the final

decision to move forward with the bridge replacement. The main issue, therefore, was about the timing of Section 106 responsibilities. The DC Circuit

said that the Section 106 regulations in place at the

time allowed for flexible application. The MOA

framework permissibly allowed for such flexibility.

In an earlier decision, Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v.

Slater, the DC Circuit had stated that Section 4(f) of the

Department of Transportation Act and Section 106

were violated when FHWA issued a Record of Decision

approving construction of a long, four-lane highway

prior to identifying the historic properties to be affected. Although a Programmatic Agreement provided for

such identification on a “segment-by-segment” basis as

the highway was constructed, the court believed such

an approach was inconsistent with Section 4(f) and

Section 106. In City of Alexandria the court now distinguished its Corridor H Alternatives decision by stating that FHWA in Corridor H had postponed its

Section 106 responsibilities for the entire project. In

contrast, in City of Alexandria FHWA only postponed

a minor, temporary, and ancillary part of its project

from Section 106 review. 

The City of Alexandria decision was helpful in clarifying the meaning of the Corridor H Alternatives,

Inc. v. Slater decision, which seemed to prohibit any

phasing of historic preservation review, even in

projects involving large corridors. Our new regulations, promulgated a few months before the City of

Alexandria decision, explicitly provide for phased

compliance in projects involving multiple corridors,

large areas of land, or property access difficulties.

This is one of many measures in our new regulations, providing for flexibility and streamlining in

the Section 106 process, while still safeguarding

historic properties.

Preservation Policy Activities

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 20 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

FHWA approved construction of a 110-mile highway in West Virginia

without a full understanding of the full range and number of historic

properties it would affect. Shown here, Bott House.
Preservation Policy Activities

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 21 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

City of South Pasadena v. Slater

In City of South Pasadena v. Slater, the DC Circuit

recognized and utilized the unique and important

contributions that the Council provides through its

involvement and comments on controversial projects. The case involved a petition for a preliminary

injunction against the proposed Route 710

Freeway extension in southern California, which

could adversely affect historic properties in six historic districts. The project has been strongly and

consistently opposed by the Council. The petition

for injunction was based on alleged violations of

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation

Act, NEPA, and the Clean Air Act. 

The court heavily relied on Council comments for

key findings that led to the granting of the injunction. Among other things, the court extensively

cited the Council’s comments in questioning

FHWA’s evaluation regarding constructive use of

historic properties. The court also explicitly relied

on the Council’s expertise and comments to doubt

whether the conclusions on the project’s

Environmental Impact Statement had a substantial

basis in fact. The Council’s comments benefitted the

court, providing it with unbiased, expert preservation assessments on the real impacts of the project

and recommendations as to how the project 

should proceed.

Brewery Dist. Soc. v. FHWA

The past year also saw the first reported case

regarding Section 110(k). This section of NHPA

halts Federal agencies from providing assistance to

applicants who, with the intent to avoid the

requirements of Section 106, cause adverse effects

to historic properties. In such situations, the

Federal agency can grant the assistance only if,

after consultation with the Council, the agency

determines that circumstances justify granting it

despite the adverse effects created by the applicant. 

In Brewery Dist. Soc. v. FHWA, a Federal district

court in Ohio denied a motion to dismiss a claim

based on Section 110(k). The City of Columbus

had demolished a historic State penitentiary to

construct a parking lot for a new downtown arena.

Local preservationists sued FHWA under Section

110(k) in order to prevent them from granting

assistance to the City of Columbus for the construction of exit and entrance ramps from a highway to the new parking lot. The court disagreed

with FHWA in finding that the plaintiffs had

standing to sue and that NHPA conferred a private

right of action they could use. Therefore, the

motion to dismiss the case was denied. It is

encouraging that the court decided not to dismiss

the lawsuit. A major purpose behind the enactment of Section 110(k) was to deter Federal agencies from disregarding destructive actions by applicants prior to their application for Federal 

assistance. A summary dismissal in Brewery Dist.

Soc. could have significantly weakened the deterrent effect Section 110(k) has on Federal agencies

as well as their applicants.

Tyler v. Cisneros

The binding nature of Memoranda of Agreement

was reaffirmed by the Ninth Circuit in Tyler v.

Cisneros. In that case, plaintiffs sought to enjoin

the City of San Francisco from building a lowincome housing project using Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds.

The project was to be built next to National

Register-eligible properties and was subject to an

MOA signed as a result of the Section 106 review

process. The plaintiffs argued that HUD and the

other listed defendants failed to meet the terms of

the MOA, which was designed to mitigate the project’s impact on the plaintiffs’ historic homes.

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction under

NHPA and NEPA. The lower, district court had

Pasadena, California’s, historic districts feature a variety of architectural styles. This Spanish Colonial Revival bungalow in Gillette Crescent

dates from the 1920s.
Preservation Policy Activities

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 22 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

dismissed the lawsuit stating that the claims were

mooted by HUD’s disbursement of funds to the

city agency. The argument was that NHPA contains an implicit statute of limitations, which

barred assertion of the NHPA claims once the

Federal agency (in this case HUD) released the

funds to the city. In holding this, the court relied

on Section 800.3(c) of the now superseded regulations, which stated in part that “Section 106

requires the Agency Official to complete the

[S]ection 106 process prior to the approval of the

expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license or permit.” The court went on to rule that even if there

was no implicit statute of limitations in NHPA,

the plaintiffs’ claims would fail because HUD no

longer exercised “continuing authority”over 

the funds.

In reversing the district court’s decision, the

Ninth Circuit stated that there was no implicit

statute of limitations in NHPA. Rather, a more

common sense reading of cited regulations would

suggest that the “prior to” language merely refers

to the timing of agency compliance. In other

words, this language establishes a time during

which the agency is required to conduct an NHPA

review, not the time during which a plaintiff is

required to bring a lawsuit. Indeed, construing

the language as the district court did would effectively leave no time slot open for a plaintiff to file

suit. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit stated that it

has never held that an implicit statute of limitations bars plaintiffs from bringing suit under

NHPA once funds are released. Rather, the Ninth

Circuit has applied the laches doctrine to resolve

the timeliness of NHPA claims. 

The Circuit Court also found the “continuing

authority” aspect of the District Court’s decision

to be erroneous since the plain language of NHPA

regulations states that the Federal agency may have

some “continuing authority” due to its continuing

involvement as a signatory to the MOA. Further,

the Ninth Circuit overruled the district’s decision

that the city’s Federal environmental review

responsibilities ceased once Federal involvement in

the project ceased. The statute authorizing delegation of HUD’s NHPA review responsibilities provides that the local official “consents to assume the

status of a responsible Federal official under

[NHPA] and...consents...to accept the jurisdiction

of the Federal courts for the purpose of 

enforcement of his responsibilities as such an official” ( 42 U.S.C. 12838(c)(4)). This means that the

city, as a signatory to the MOA, remains liable

under NHPA for its failure to carry out the terms

of the agreement. 

In overturning the worrisome decision by the district

court, the Ninth Circuit decided that an MOA

remains binding even after the agency at issue has

already disbursed its funds. If the district court’s

decision would have been left standing, it could

have created a dangerous precedent, seriously

undermining the enforceability of MOAs, a major

cornerstone of the Section 106 process.

Wyoming Sawmills, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service

Finally, although no decision has been made in the

case, the recently filed Wyoming Sawmills, Inc. v.

U.S. Forest Service case highlights what has become

and is expected to continue to be a contentious area

in historic preservation: How do the Establishment

and Free Exercise clauses of the Constitution relate

to Federal historic preservation measures protecting

properties of religious and cultural significance to

Native Americans? 

In Wyoming Sawmills, a purchaser of timber sales

is challenging the validity of a Historic Preservation

Plan made pursuant to a Section 106 PA. The plan

provides for certain measures to protect the

Medicine Wheel NHL in Bighorn National Forest,

Wyoming. Among other things, the plaintiff asserts

that the plan and activities taken in furtherance of

it promote the religion of Native Americans and,

therefore, violate the Establishment Clause of 

the Constitution. 

Various laws, such as the 1992 amendments to

NHPA, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act,

and Executive Orders, exhort Federal agencies to

consider and/or protect sites of cultural and religious

significance to Native Americans. When Federal

agencies approve certain measures providing such

protection, they are sometimes subjected to

Establishment Clause challenges by various industries and public interest groups. On the other hand,

when such protective measures are not approved or

considered, Native Americans sometimes claim the

Federal agencies are violating those same laws and

the Free Exercise Clause. It remains to be seen how

the courts handle these issues.
Preservation Policy Activities

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 23 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

EMERGING ISSUES

As the discussion above suggests, coordinating preservation policy was an important component of the

Council’s 1998-1999 work. With the role, size, and

organization of Federal agencies undergoing reevaluation and familiar programs being dramatically restructured and reinvented, it will undoubtedly remain in the

forefront. Restructuring of the Department of

Agriculture, the prospect of substituting consolidated

block grant funding for current housing and transportation programs, and the emerging role of Native

Hawaiians and Indian tribes in exercising greater selfdetermination on tribal lands present great challenges

for the national historic preservation program and have

all been reflected in our policy agenda. With the advent

of new regulations, the Council looks forward to adapting the Federal historic preservation review process to

ever-changing administrative and funding needs. 

Incoming Section 106 cases provide a useful lens

through which to view other emerging issues. 

In 1998 and 1999, for example, cases revealed conflicts between Section 106 and the Mining Act of

1872 as implemented by the Bureau of Land

Management; difficulties faced by the General

Services Administration in meeting the requirements of the Federal courts system while coordinating various environmental reviews; and questions

about environmental justice. These and other cases

with long-term policy implications are presented at

the conclusion of this report. 

Through its policy development and program

coordination work in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999,

the Council attempted to make manifest its leadership role in the national historic preservation

program. Designed to support and encourage historic preservation activities carried out by State,

local, and tribal governments and the private sector, the vigorous policy development and program

coordination agenda for 1998-1999 demonstrated

the Council’s commitment to the broad goals 

of NHPA.
IMPROVING FEDERAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Section III

Priest Rapids Dam, Washington State
Improving Federal Historic Preservation

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 25 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Steward for publicly owned and controlled historic

resources and partner with State, tribal, and local

governments and the private sector in advancing

historic preservation goals through provision of

financial, technical, and other forms of assistance.

The focus of the Council’s principal contribution to

the White House Millennium Program, better stewardship of Federal resources (see Figure 5, page 27)

was also the goal of program initiatives with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),

the U.S. Forest Service, the Federal Highway

Administration, and the Departments of the Navy

and the Army.

POWER PRODUCTION

Hydropower

In 1998-1999, the Council worked extensively

with FERC and the hydroelectric industry, including the National Hydropower Association, to

improve planning for historic properties at hydroelectric facilities. In February 1999, we hosted a

meeting for FERC and industry representatives to

identify areas of mutual concern and possible

solutions to historic preservation and Section 106

compliance issues. Two clear needs emerged from

the discussion: updated and expanded standard

language and guidance for agreement documents

for hydropower relicensing projects, and guidance

on developing Historic Resources Management

Plans. Completion of these products should help

improve the quality of the management plans and

reduce costly developmental delays. The Council

will continue to work with FERC and industry

toward that end.

In March 1999, the Council was invited to participate on an interagency task force to improve

hydroelectric licensing processes, along with

FERC, the Department of the Interior, the

Department of Commerce, the Department of

Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency,

and the Council on Environmental Quality to

improve the coordination between Section 106 and

FERC relicensing. Since then, we have served on

two task force work groups: one charged with

coordinating Federal mandates in relicensing; the

other with facilitating constructive participation in

FERC’s collaborative process. These products are

currently under review by the task force steering

committee, which is composed of senior representatives from agencies other than the Council. We

also helped draft NEPA procedures and guidance

on FERC’s collaborative procedures. Even though

the Council plans to pursue a separate but related

program initiative with FERC, work with this

interagency group will continue.

The Council made significant strides in building a

closer working relationship with the power industry during the past reporting period. The Edison

Electric Institute invited us to participate in the cultural resource management session of its 1998

national workshop, “Partners in Stewardship:

Reducing Costs through Cooperation,” in

Albuquerque, New Mexico. Later in 1998, we participated in the Utilities Round Table on Cultural

Resources in LaConner, Washington. This annual

conference, sponsored by several hydropower

licensees in Washington State, was attended by

some 70 representatives from the hydroelectric

industry–those who work directly with Section 106

compliance and those who work for or contract

with license applicants and licensees. 

During this reporting period, the Council undertook a variety of activities

designed to improve the historic preservation programs of Federal agencies, using regular 

business meetings to examine the Federal Government’s two chief roles in historic preservation: 

The Council has worked to improve consideration of historic 

properties for hydropower relicensing projects and Historic 

Resources Management Plans at hydroelectric facilities. 

Priest Rapids Dam in Washington State is one such example.

(Photo courtesy of Grant County Public Utility District)
Improving Federal Historic Preservation

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 26 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

The Council presented an overview of the new regulations and shared the latest developments and

improvements in coordinating Section 106 review

and the hydroelectric relicensing process. The

Council’s national perspective on the hydroelectric

industry and historic preservation was well received.

Better communication among all participants

involved in relicensing activities can facilitate more

sensitive treatment of historic properties, making

compliance with Section 106 less burdensome.

Natural Gas

In November 1998, the Interstate Natural Gas

Association of America (INGAA) sent the Council a

revised Interagency Cooperative Agreement proposed

to streamline the gas pipeline certification process;

establish clear points of cooperation between Federal

agencies; encourage early resolution in the certificate

process; and avoid duplication of effort. This agreement reflects our prior work with INGAA to look

more broadly at how natural gas pipeline construction addresses cultural resource issues and how

Section 106 review could be streamlined.

In further efforts to improve handling of historic

property concerns by FERC for pipeline approvals,

the Council commented extensively on three proposed FERC rules. In general, we applauded

FERC’s efforts because we believe that the proposed rules would update their existing regulations

to better comport with current policies, provide

applicants with greater clarity about environmental

requirements and reporting, and generally streamline the process. However, we expressed concern

about how effectively these proposed rules could be

implemented and coordinated with FERC’s responsibilities under Section 106. In light of Council concerns, which are reflected in the specific comments

submitted to FERC, we will continue to work with

FERC and INGAA to identify and resolve problems

and inefficiencies. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION

Forest Service

The Council executed a Programmatic Agreement

with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land

Management for the wildfire management program in

Colorado in 1998. In particular, the PA addressed the

protection of historic properties in the agencies’ programs for management of naturally ignited wildfires

that the agency determines should be allowed to

burn. This effort led to subsequent discussions with

the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to

develop national standards for historic

property protection in

wildfire management.

These standards are

expected to be incorporated into a national PA during Fiscal

Year 2000. On a

more general note, we

opened discussions

with the Southeast

Region of the Forest

Service to undertake a

comprehensive examination of its regional

PA and examine

changes that may be

necessitated by the

newly enacted Section

106 regulations.

Federal Highway Administration

Following passage of the Transportation Efficiency

Act for the 21st Century, the Council has participated actively in various efforts to streamline the

environmental review process for highway and

transit projects. Working as a task force member

with representatives of other Federal and State

agencies involved in the environmental review

process, we have established goals to reduce project

delays while continuing to protect the environment.

Toward that end, we have signed two Memoranda

of Understanding with FHWA headquarters and

with mid-Atlantic regional partners to direct and

continue the cooperative effort. Also on the transportation front, we have been partnering with

FHWA to provide detailed training to transportation planners. This has included a one-hour briefing

for a national FHWA video conference and workshops for State departments of transportation

throughout the country.

MILITARY ISSUES

Department of the Navy

In response to concerns expressed by the Senate

Committee on Appropriations, the Navy initiated

The new agreement among the

Council, the Forest Service, and the

Bureau of Land Management addresses

the protection of historic properties

when the agencies decide to let 

naturally ignited wildfires burn.
Improving Federal Historic Preservation

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 27 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

FIGURE 5. THE COUNCIL’S MILLENNIUM INITIATIVE ON FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP

Beginning in 1998 and continuing through 2000, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has been studying how the Federal Government can improve its stewardship of the Nation’s historic and cultural resources.

This study will culminate at the end of FY 2000 with a major policy report with recommendations for the

President, the Congress, and the Executive Branch.

Our study is intended to complement such millennium initiatives as “Save America’s Treasures.” That program

is a public-private effort under the auspices of the White House Millennium Council to develop support and funding for care of specific important historic places and icons of America’s heritage like the Star-Spangled Banner. In

taking an initial broad look at historic preservation policy and ways to meet the challenges facing it in the new

century, the Council has become convinced that a sustained commitment to Federal stewardship and the leadership the Federal Government can and should provide in preserving America’s heritage is an appropriate followup step. Therefore, the Council’s report will begin by making the case for Federal stewardship of historic and cultural resources, summarize what resources are under Federal care and management, discuss some of the challenges

to better stewardship of the past, and offer recommendations on how to meet those challenges. 

The report will examine in depth three aspects of preservation policy and Federal programs that may be key

ingredients in improving Federal Government attention to these needs:

• leadership in building a cultural stewardship ethic;

• commitment in taking care of the Nation’s historic and cultural resources as important public assets; and

• accountability in making public interest decisions affecting preservation of our heritage. 

Positive as well as negative examples of Federal agency activities are being examined, and opportunities for partnership, innovation, and leveraging of funding and other support will be highlighted. The report is being

informed by views and ideas from key participants and interested citizens, which have been obtained in part

through an electronic public forum established on the Council’s Internet site.

The Council’s findings and recommendations will be published in a widely circulated, illustrated report, which

will also be available on the Internet.

Council Meeting Focus

Over the past two Fiscal Years, regular Council meetings have been devoted in part to a focused examination and discussion of critical issues connected with the Federal Government’s role and responsibilities in historic preservation.

Each of these meetings had an onsite component, so that members could examine real resources and issues of concern

to Federal agencies and others who work with them or are affected by their actions. 

After each meeting, staff, in consultation with the members task force, developed suggestions for future agency

program improvements. This material is supported by agency presentations, public testimony, and observations

from our meetings, as well as targeted follow-up research. 

Internet Discussion Forum 

Grassroots input from a broad range of government officials, interested organizations, and individuals was

solicited via our Web site through a discussion forum. We received ideas and opinions from Federal employees,

State and local officials, citizen activists, Native Americans, historic preservation professionals, business 

owners, and other members of the interested public.

In addition to the Internet discussion forum and Council meetings, we have employed targeted mailings to the

heads of Federal agencies, interviews with Federal Preservation Officers, public presentations to preservation

conferences, and electronic as well as documentary research on Federal activities. Referenced materials include

previous special studies, annual reports, strategic plans, budget documents, and similar sources. Key agency 

documents and case studies from Council staff experience are providing important insights. 
Improving Federal Historic Preservation

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 28 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

consultation with the Council to address the costs

of maintaining historic housing. We worked with

the Navy to develop a PA that adheres closely to

the Historic and Archeological Resources

Protection Planning Guidelines issued by the Navy.

Fundamental to the guidelines and the PA is the

categorization of historic properties as a means of

prioritizing expenditure of scarce maintenance and

preservation dollars. The focus on preservation

and the need for review under Section 106 diminishes relative to the significance and use potential

of the properties. The PA is undergoing final

review by the Navy.

Department of the Army

The Council continued to provide the Army support

and expertise in implementing its cultural resources

management program under an Interagency

Agreement (IAG) with the U.S. Army Environmental

Center. The IAG authorizes the Council to provide

staff to the Army to implement the agreement and to

serve as subject matter experts on historic preservation issues. Now entering its fifth year, this partnership fosters better military planning for management

of historic and archeological resources, while 

supporting the Army’s defense mission. 

An ongoing component of the IAG is a collaborative effort to develop Army Alternate Procedures to

the Council’s regulations for purposes of Army

compliance with Section 106. (This initiative was

first established as counterpart regulations but has

changed to alternate procedures as authorized

under the Council’s new regulations.) A first draft

of the counterpart regulations was distributed in

the fall of 1997 for review and comment. A second

draft was distributed in the winter of 1998, again

requesting review and comment. As part of this

process, the Council helped the Army conduct consultation meetings with the National Trust for

Historic Preservation, the NCSHPO task force, the

National Association of Tribal Historic

Preservation Officers, Indian tribes, and Native

Hawaiians. Tribal consultation meetings were conducted in various regional locations throughout the

United States. The Council also established a members task force and a staff review team to oversee

the development of the alternate procedures. 

Also under the IAG, the Council provided review and

technical input on several Army-produced documents

to ensure consistency with NHPA. These products

included historic contexts, Economic Analysis

Software programs, Integrated Cultural Resource

Management Plans, and Maintenance Standards for

Historic Buildings. We provided considerable input on

historic context development that addresses Cold War

resources, Capehart-Wherry Army family housing, and

Quartermaster Corps construction. Related projects

completed under the IAG in FY98 and FY99 include

an update to Federal Historic Preservation Case Law,

1966-1996, produced jointly by the Council and the

Army in FY96, and an update to Army Regulation

200-4: Cultural Resources Management to reflect

changes in Army policy and procedures based on our

revised regulations. The Council also provided guidance on treatments developed by the Seattle District of

the Army Corps of Engineers for historic windows,

lead paint, wood types, and housing.

We worked closely with the Army’s Native

American Program to assist in the development of

guidance and technical materials for Army headquarters and installation personnel, and contributed

to Native American Consultation Guidelines, a useful tool for installations in developing relationships

with Native Americans and Native Hawaiians and

defining consultation protocols that respect the 

government-to-government relationship between

The costs of maintaining historic housing, such as Officers’ Row 

at the U.S. Naval Academy, in Annapolis, MD, is the focus of an 

agreement the Council is developing with the Navy.
Improving Federal Historic Preservation

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 29 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

the Army and federally recognized tribes. We participated in the 1998 Army-Native Peoples workshop and provided input in Native American

Program guidance. 

Other ongoing initiatives include updating the

National Historic Preservation Act Reference Guide

to Federal Projects and Archeology Resource

Planning and Management: Guidance for Army

Installation Commanders to reflect changes in Army

policy and procedures based on our revised regulations. More information about the Army program

can be found on the Council’s Web site at

www.achp.gov/army.html. 

Program improvement activities of all kinds

assume greater importance as Federal agency

resources, both financial and human, shrink. Such

activities provide a vehicle for adapting legally

mandated historic preservation responsibilities to

changing agency capabilities, increasing efficiency, and focusing Federal attention on important

historic preservation issues. The relatively small

investment in maintaining Council expertise and

the ability to provide it to Federal agencies produces significant cost savings to the Federal

Government and promotes preservation of 

important historic properties.

Under an Interagency Agreement with the Army, the Council provided

input on the development of historic contexts for Quartermaster Corps

construction. This standardized design for a gymnasium comes from 

Ft. Riley in Kansas.
PROTECTING HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Section IV

Rock Art, Dinosaur National Monument, UT/CO
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 31 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Section 106 is implemented by Council regulations,

“Protection of Historic Properties,” which require

agencies to consult with SHPOs, Indian tribes,

Native Hawaiian organizations, local governments,

and applicants for Federal assistance to resolve

adverse impacts on historic properties. These regulations were revised in 1999, significantly modifying the existing Section 106 review process and

introducing new streamlining opportunities.

IMPROVING SECTION 106 REVIEW

The May 18, 1999, publication of the Council’s

revised regulations in the Federal Register as a final

rule brought to closure a reform effort that spanned

six years. As previously reported, in response to the

1992 NHPA amendments and the Administration’s

National Performance Review, in 1993 the Council

had embarked upon a comprehensive review of the

Section 106 regulations with an eye toward improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the review

process. (The regulations were last amended in

1986.) Using focus groups of key Section 106 users

to help shape the effort, we surveyed more than

1,200 Federal, State, and local agencies, Indian

tribes, organizations, and individuals.

Led by the Regulations Task Force, the Council

adopted policies to guide reform and approve specific changes. In October 1994, a draft of the proposed new procedures was published in 

the Federal Register for public comment.

Approximately 400 agencies, organizations, and

individuals commented on the draft and, while

most endorsed its intentions, concerns about the

substance of the revised regulations encouraged

the Council to rethink the proposal.

Further meetings were held with user groups, particularly business and industry users affected by the

Section 106 review procedures. Subsequently, the

task force circulated an informal discussion draft

among all previous commenters. Nearly 100 

organizations and individuals responded to this

draft, most of whom commended the Council on

significant improvement to the initial effort.

Following interagency and Office of Management and

Budget review during summer 1996, a revised proposed regulation was published for public comment

on September 13, 1996. By the close of the formal

comment period in mid-December, some 230 individuals and organizations had weighed in, the majority

deeming the 1996 draft a “great improvement” over

its predecessors.

Comments received from Indian tribes both during

and after the formal comment period, however,

revealed general dissatisfaction with the lack of faceto-face consultation with Indian tribes in accordance

with the President’s 1994 Memorandum on

Government-to-Government Relations with Native

American Tribal Governments. In response, the

Council launched intensive consultation with tribes

in a series of government-to-government meetings

held across the country in summer 1997.

Comments received through tribal consultation indicated that tribes overall were dissatisfied with the

direction of the regulations. They were most concerned with the identification and evaluation of historic properties, including properties to which they

attach religious and cultural significance. They were

apprehensive that Federal agencies’ identification

efforts would be incomplete and that agencies would

make “no historic properties affected” determinations

without prior consultation with the tribes.

The relationship between tribal and SHPO responsibilities was also of concern to tribes. When undertakings were on tribal lands, tribes did not want

SHPO involvement. When undertakings were on

non-tribal lands but affected properties to which

they attached religious and cultural significance or

other historic properties of tribal concern, then tribes

wanted equal status with SHPOs and NCSHPO 

in the process.

Section 106 of NHPA, the fundamental Federal legal protection for historic properties, directs Federal agencies to consider the impact of proposed actions on properties

included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and provide the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation with an opportunity to comment.
With regard to the Section 106 process on tribal

lands, the issues consistently raised reflected the

underlying issue of a tribal nation’s sovereignty. The

primary concern was the ability of a SHPO to make

or agree to a decision by a Federal agency on tribal

lands when there was no THPO. Tribal representatives explained why this was a problem for tribal governments and why the regulatory process under the

June 1997 draft regulations that enabled a State to

have overriding decision-making authority on tribal

lands questioned their sovereign status. They maintained that regardless of whether the tribe had formally assumed SHPO duties, the State did not have

the jurisdictional authority to have final oversight for

a Federal undertaking on tribal lands.

Off tribal lands, tribal representatives maintained

that sovereignty, treaty rights, trust responsibility,

and government-to-government status entitled tribes

to a role in the Section 106 process that was greater

than the other “consulting parties” or general public

as defined in the draft proposal.

The discussion surrounding the identification, evaluation, determination of effect, and potential mitigation proposals for properties to which the tribes

attached religious and cultural significance resulted

in recommendations that tribes should be involved

early in the process and should be required signatories to a Memorandum of Agreement, or at least

have the ability to concur or object to the part of a

project or plan that will affect an area of tribal or

Native American interest. 

The final draft regulation that went to OMB for

interagency review on November 22, 1997,

responded directly to these concerns, although tribal roles both on and off tribal lands continued to be

refined through 1998. 

The final rule published May 18, 1999, embodied the

principle that Indian tribes should have the same extent

of involvement when actions occur on tribal lands as

the SHPO does for actions within the State. This

includes the ability to agree to decisions regarding significance of historic properties, the effects to them, and

the treatment of those effects, including signing MOAs.

Off tribal lands, Federal agencies must consult the

appropriate tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

The provisions recognize Federal agency obligations

during project planning to consider properties to

which tribes attach religious and cultural significance. Provision is also made for the involvement of

the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer in lieu of the

SHPO for undertakings on tribal lands when that

official has assumed the responsibilities of the SHPO

as authorized by NHPA.

Highlights of Major Changes

Under the new regulations, the Council will no longer

review routine decisions such as adverse effect findings and most Memoranda of Agreement that are

agreed to by the Federal agency and the SHPO or

THPO, recognizing that their respective capabilities

to do effective preservation planning has grown substantially since the regulations were revised in 1986.

The Council will focus its attention instead on those

situations where our expertise and national perspective can enhance the consideration of historic preservation issues. Criteria accompanying the regulation

specify that the Council may enter the Section 106

process when an undertaking 1) has substantial

impacts on important historic properties; 2) presents

important questions of policy or interpretation; 3)

has the potential for presenting procedural problems;

4) presents issues of concern to Indian tribes or

Native Hawaiian organizations.

The new regulations emphasize the Federal agency’s

primary responsibility for Section 106 decisions, and

the advisory roles of the Council and the SHPO/THPO

are clarified. Other participants’ roles are more clearly

defined, particularly Indian tribes, local governments,

and applicants, who may participate in the review

process as “consulting parties.” Certain individuals

and organizations may also be entitled to be consulting

parties, based on the nature of their relation to an

undertaking and its effects on historic properties.

Others may request to be involved. The exclusive role

of the Federal agency to make the ultimate decision on

the undertaking is stressed and the advisory roles of the

other parties are clearly stated. 

The revisions also acknowledge the direct interests of

applicants for Federal assistance or approval and

specify greater opportunities for active participation

in the Section 106 review process as consulting parties. Applicants are permitted to initiate and pursue

the steps of the process; however, the Federal agency

remains responsible for final decisions regarding historic properties. Provisions have been added to

encourage agencies to initiate compliance with

Section 106 and begin consultation with the

Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 32 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 33 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

SHPO/THPO and others early in the project planning stage. This feature should promote early agency

consideration of historic properties and prevent late

recognition of an agency’s legal responsibilities,

which can cause delays or compliance problems.

Agencies are encouraged to integrate Section 106

review with reviews required under NEPA and related laws. Specific provisions that make identification

and evaluation, public participation, and documentation requirements more flexible facilitate this and will

streamline reviews, allowing agencies to use information and analyses prepared for one law to be used to

meet the requirements of another. The regulations

authorize agencies to use the preparation of

Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental

Assessments under NEPA to meet Section 106 needs

in lieu of following the specified Council process.

This is expected to be a major opportunity for agencies with well-developed NEPA processes to simplify

concurrent reviews, reduce costs to applicants, and

avoid redundant paperwork. 

Federal agencies may seek exemptions from Section

106 or advisory comments on an entire program.

Also, the Council may establish standard methods of

treating recurring situations. This will allow agencies

to save both time and resources that would otherwise

be committed to legally mandated reviews.

Opportunities for public involvement in the Section

106 process are simplified and more clearly defined,

and Federal agencies are encouraged to use their

established public involvement procedures where

appropriate. It is hoped that clarification in this area

will reduce controversy over the adequacy of an

agency’s efforts to involve the public.

Finally, the provisions allowing Federal agencies to

substitute internal procedures for the Council’s

Section 106 regulations no longer require that the

agency procedures be formal rules or regulations.

This provision will make it easier for agencies to 

tailor the Section 106 process to their needs.

Approval of such substitute procedures is linked to

requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(E) of NHPA. 

Project Reviews

While regulatory revisions moved ahead, project review

continued under the existing regulations. In Fiscal Years

1998 and 1999, the number of new cases submitted for

review–2,300 and 1,134, respectively–continued 

a downward trend over previous years. This trend

was influenced by a number of factors but clearly one

cause is the general anticipation of agencies awaiting

the new streamlined Section 106 review process.

Related to this is the reluctance of many agencies to

invest training key personnel in Section 106 until the

new regulations were in place. As in previous years,

all but a few cases were resolved through consultation. The ten cases that were terminated or deemed

foreclosures were commented on by panels of members or through Chairman’s letters. The trend is

expected to continue under the Council’s new regulations, since SHPOs are now empowered to conclude

routine Section 106 review absent our involvement.

Section 106 review has been recognized as a model

conflict resolution process. It brings together parties

with significant interest in the issues presented; defines

a clear framework for consultation and interaction;

and prescribes the format for negotiated outcomes

reflecting the agreement of involved parties. The

Council’s revised regulations ensure continued protection for historic properties in the new millennium. For

an overview of current Section 106 cases highlighting

specific policy issues, consult our Web site.

SELECTED SECTION 106 CASES, 1998-1999

Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to

consider historic preservation values when planning

their activities. When conducting Section 106 review,

the Federal agency must identify affected historic

properties, evaluate the proposed project’s effect on

those properties, and explore ways to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects. The Federal agency conducts this process in consultation with State and

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, the Council,

when appropriate, and other parties with an interest

in the preservation issues.

Each year, thousands of Federal actions undergo

Section 106 review. The vast majority of cases are

routine and can be resolved at the State or tribal

level, without Council involvement. However, a

considerable number of cases present issues or challenges that warrant the Council’s attention. They

may embody complex preservation issues, attract

substantial public controversy, or represent 

precedent-setting situations or significant impacts

on important historic properties.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 34 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

The following snapshots of cases selected from the

Council’s 1998-1999 docket of project reviews provide information on a representative cross-section of

Section 106 projects in which the Council has been

involved. They illustrate the great diversity of

Federal actions and range of resources that can be

affected by Federal actions.

These cases also highlight the wide variety of

Federal activities that trigger the Section 106

review process. While Federal involvement is obvious when, for example, the Federal Highway

Administration funds a highway construction project or the General Services Administration builds a

Federal courthouse, the Federal connection and

presence can be obscure when it is an Army Corps

of Engineers permit for a privately funded housing

development or a Department of Housing and

Urban Development grant administered by a 

small town.

Finally, these projects reflect the variety and complexity of Federal activities that come before the

Council. They show the ways the Government influences what happens to historic properties in communities throughout our Nation and points up the

importance of an informed public. Alert to the

potential conflicts between Federal actions and historic preservation goals, citizens can use the Section

106 review process to achieve the best possible

preservation solution.

For the purposes of discussion, the cases that follow

have been organized according to major themes in

the Council’s 1998-1999 work: Federal Stewardship;

Sprawl; Native American Issues; Cultural Diversity;

and Preserving the Recent Past.

FEDERAL STEWARDSHIP

Long Beach Naval Station Demolition,

California

Selected for disposal in 1995 by the Navy, the Long

Beach Naval Station in California was to be redeveloped by the city as a container terminal development. The proposal called for the complete demolition

of the station’s Roosevelt Historic District, a 1940

International-style campus designed by noted

Southern California architect Paul Revere Williams.

For many Long Beach citizens, the district symbolized

the city’s historic relationship with the Navy.

A lawsuit by a local historic preservation group challenged the city’s analysis of alternatives in the

environmental impact report, and the court held that

the California Environmental Quality Act had not

been complied with. With this project’s consulting

parties, the Navy

drew up an agreement that still

resulted in the

demolition of the

historic district

but that required

certain measures

for its commemoration plus $4.5

million for preservation efforts in

Long Beach.

Slated for closure

by the Defense

Base Closure 

and Realignment

Commission, the

Long Beach Naval

Station in Long

Beach, California, was declared surplus in 1995 by the

Navy, which initiated the process for its disposal.

Through the Base Realignment and Closure disposal

process, the city of Long Beach, acting as the Local

Reuse Authority, and the Port of Long Beach, a 

political subdivision of the city, determined that the

highest and best use of the property would be its 

redevelopment as a container terminal development. 

Although the Navy initiated Section 106 review for

the disposal action in December 1995, negotiations

to consider alternatives to the proposed adverse

effect and develop a Memorandum of Agreement

did not begin until September 1996. During these

consultations, the city presented information

regarding the design of container terminal facilities

but was unwilling to develop a reuse study.

Alternatively, the city proposed that the port establish a fund for other preservation projects within

the City of Long Beach to compensate for the loss

of the Roosevelt Historic District. 

In the fall of 1996, a lawsuit was filed by the Long

Beach Heritage Coalition under the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), challenging the

port’s analysis of alternatives in its Environmental

Declared surplus by the Navy in 1995, Long

Beach (California) Naval Station’s Roosevelt

Historic District, a 1940 International-style

campus, was slated for demolition.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 35 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Impact Report. In May 1997, the Los Angeles

Superior Court determined that the CEQA process

had not been complied with because of the port’s

predisposition to the proposed terminal project. 

In August 1997, the Navy agreed to initiate

research necessary for the preparation of an

Adaptive Use Study for the Roosevelt Historic

District. The study, finalized in November, was

developed by a team of experts in many fields

including architecture, planning, and economics.

The study identified two potentially feasible alternatives that would retain many of the significant

properties within the historic district: an Auto

Terminal and an Institutional Campus that could

include a police academy and fire department, a

museum, and the Port of Long Beach administrative

offices. These two alternatives, along with the container port option, were examined by the Navy

under the National Environmental Policy Act.

After several intensive consultation meetings and a

second public hearing, an MOA was finally reached

in January 1998 for the disposal of the Long Beach

Naval Station. The MOA, executed by the Navy, the

Council, the California State Historic Preservation

Officer, the City of Long Beach, and local historic

preservation groups, includes mitigation provisions

for the three alternatives analyzed under the

Environmental Impact Statement.

Following its analysis of alternatives, the Navy

selected, through its NEPA Record of Decision, the

container port alternative. Following the demolition

and in compliance with the MOA, the Port Authority

provided $4.5 million to the Long Beach Heritage

Fund to support the identification, preservation, and

interpretation of historic resources within Long

Beach. In addition to the fund, a professional quality documentary video of the Naval Station was prepared, architectural and landscape elements were salvaged, and other measures were completed to 

commemorate the historic district.

General Post Office Transfer/Lease, 

Washington, DC

The General Services Administration’s plans to transfer and lease the General Post Office Building in

Washington, DC, illustrate Federal historic preservation stewardship at its best. One of the first significant Federal buildings constructed in the Nation’s

capital, the structure has posed a challenge to GSA

due to its high level of integrity––extraordinary for a

building of its age and history of use. 

In exploring its options for the future of the building,

GSA conducted multiple analyses, involved the public

at length, considered the opinions of consulting parties,

and advertised its initial scope of plans in the national

media. In addition, the Public Buildings Service

Commissioner made certain that historic preservation

issues were given considerable weight in GSA’s analysis

and review of the property-use proposals it received.

In 1835, the Government began building the first significant Federal building in the national capital since

the Capitol itself: the General Post Office Building.

Originally based on a design by Robert Mills, the

General Post Office was expanded and completed in

1845 under the design of Thomas U. Walter, one of

the architects of the Capitol. This National Historic

Landmark and National Register-listed building (also

known as the U.S. Tariff Commission Building) retains

an extraordinary level of integrity for a building of its

age and history of use. 

It is this historic integrity that has posed the greatest challenge to the building’s owner, GSA. Indeed,

GSA reached its decision to lease the now-vacant

building after multiple analyses completed over a

period of several years demonstrated the difficulty––and cost––associated with rehabilitating the

building for office use or museum space, while

respecting the historic fabric of the building and not

compromising its integrity.

After numerous requests for funding an appropriate

rehabilitation or renovation program were declined

by Congress and executive branch agencies, GSA

Dating from 1835, the General Post Office in Washington, DC, 

an NHL, retains an extraordinary level of integrity for a building 

of its age and use.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 36 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

determined to pursue leasing the property for private

use pursuant to the authorities granted in Section

111 of the National Historic Preservation Act. GSA’s

plans call for leasing the property to a private entity

with the rehabilitation and renovation program

being carried out under the aegis of GSA; revenue

from the lease would be used by GSA to maintain

this, and other, historic properties in its portfolio. 

GSA advertised its initial plans in the Wall Street

Journal and on its Web site and developed a request

for qualifications and use of the property. Public

Buildings Service Commissioner Robert Peck made

certain that historic preservation issues were given

great weight in GSA’s analysis and review of the proposals it received. After a lengthy and quite successful public participation process, GSA analyzed the

proposals and selected the Kimpton Hotel Group as

the developer for the project. 

The Council and the District of Columbia Historic

Preservation Officer felt that use of the building as a

hotel would be a better “fit” from a preservation perspective, as less-intrusive remodeling and renovation

would be needed than if an apartment scheme were

adopted. In addition, the building’s use as a hotel

would also mean that the property and its significant

interior spaces would remain open and accessible to

the general public. GSA is in the final stages of negotiating the lease agreement and a Memorandum of

Agreement that will govern how the Section 106

process is concluded.

Maluhia Hall Demolition, Hawaii

The 1998 demolition of Honolulu’s Maluhia Hall––a

uniquely Hawaiian, National Register-eligible building that showcased popular wartime performances

such as Bob Hope’s U.S.O. shows––serves as a

reminder of why it is important for Federal agencies to

initiate consultation early when planning an undertaking. This case demonstrates the lack of attention

some Federal agencies give to opportunities under

Section 111 of NHPA to find alternative purposes for

historic properties that they are not using or do not

plan to use.

Built in 1943 at Fort DeRussy in Honolulu, Maluhia

Hall served American troops in the Pacific for more

than half a century. From World War II to the

Vietnam War, Maluhia featured historic performances for Armed Forces personnel, including U.S.O.

shows hosted by Bob Hope. Eligible for listing in the

National Register of Historic Places, the building

was built using typical World War II-era military

construction methods but also featured many design

elements unique to the style and climate of Hawaii.

In 1996, the U.S. Army proposed to demolish

Maluhia Hall to create open space for the practice of

Native Hawaiian cultural activities. That August, the

Army submitted a draft Memorandum of Agreement

to the Council for signature.

Because Section 111 of NHPA authorizes agencies to

create alternative uses for historic properties they are

not using or do not see a use for in the future, we

responded by asking the Army to show that it had

fully considered alternatives to its proposal. We also

requested that the Army

provide evidence that 

it had sought the views 

of interested Native

Hawaiians and the public, pursuant to requirements of Section 106. 

Without responding to

these issues, in December

1996 the Army submitted a Memorandum of

Agreement both it 

and the State Historic

Preservation Officer had

signed. Again, the Council declined to accept the

agreement and encouraged the Army to examine

alternative uses for the building and to seek public

input about the proposed project. The Army then

withdrew the proposed agreement.

Although the Army participated in a public meeting

about the project sponsored by the Historic Hawaii

Foundation, subsequent consultation proved unproductive and was terminated by the Army in

December 1997. After the Council submitted formal

comments to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary

restated the Army’s determination and, in February

1998, demolished the building.

Philadelphia Naval Hospital Disposal,

Pennsylvania

In 1999, the Philadelphia Naval Hospital––a complex

that includes “one of the finest Art Deco buildings in

the city”––was slated for demolition by the City of

Philadelphia. (The city took over ownership of the

Maluhia Hall, or “haven of rest,” 

at Fort DeRussey in Honolulu,

Hawaii, featured wood-louvered 

doors and decorative cut-out 

panels depicting island motifs.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 37 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

complex from the Navy under the Base Realignment

and Closure Act.) Despite extensive consultation, the

Council and the Navy could not agree on how to

avoid or mitigate impacts on this National Registereligible property. The planned demolition raises questions as to whether limiting the potential use of public

sales inappropriately constricts the Navy’s ability 

to fully take into account the effect of disposal on

important historic properties.

“One of the finest Art Deco buildings in the city,”

was how one survey of Philadelphia architecture

described the Philadelphia Naval Hospital’s

“Building 1,” a 15-story, Art Deco-style tower faced

with yellow brick and brown terra cotta. Since 1993,

however, the entire National Register-eligible complex has stood vacant after the Navy relocated all of

the complex’s functions, and slated the historic

buildings for closure and disposal under the Base

Realignment and Closure Act of 1988. The act is

designed to allow the military to quickly dispose of

excess facilities designated for closure or realignment

by Congress to local communities for reuse and 

economic revitalization. 

The City of Philadelphia expressed interest in obtaining the parcel and prepared a proposed reuse plan

for the property. The plan, which called for demolition of all structures on the site, was predicated on a

belief that the historic buildings could not be economically reused and was developed before the property was formally determined eligible for the

National Register.

Despite extensive consultation under Section 106,

the Council and the Navy could not agree on how to

avoid or mitigate impacts to the hospital complex. 

In April 1999, the Secretary of the Navy terminated

further consultation and requested final comments

from the Council.

To formulate those comments, Council Chairman

Cathryn Slater appointed a panel of Council 

members representing the General Services

Administration, the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, and the Architect of the Capitol to

review the case. Panel representatives and staff visited the site and met with consulting parties, interested citizens, and preservation groups. The panel

reported that efforts by the Navy and the city to

explore the feasibility of adaptive reuse were insufficient, notably due to the lack of any marketing of the

property. It recommended

that the Navy reexamine its

alternatives, including the

previously rejected option of

marketing for public sale.

The Council recommended

that at minimum, before

transferring the property to

the city, the Navy should

require the city to issue a

Request for Proposal (RFP)

to explore preservation of the

complex’s historic buildings.

Although the final decision

on reuse would rest with the

city, issuance of an RFP

would give this important

resource one last chance for

survival. The Council also

urged the Navy to reconsider Navy Policy

Memorandum #98-07, which set the stage for termination of consultation. The policy establishes principles to guide the Navy in complying with Section

106 for base closures. Although it emphasizes early

consideration of historic preservation, the policy was

issued well after the last round of base closures and,

therefore, may not be effective in these situations. 

This is a problem, since the same memorandum also

establishes Navy policy against public sale of historic

properties with preservation covenants when such sale

would run counter to local reuse plans. This case,

then, raises questions as to whether limiting the potential use of public sales inappropriately constricts the

Navy’s ability to fully take into account the effect of

disposal on important historic properties.

In August 1999, the Secretary of the Navy responded to the Council’s comments. Regrettably, the

Secretary elected to accept only one of the three recommendations––to document the property before

transfer and to make previously salvaged items

available for reuse on the site. The Navy will not

require the city to issue an RFP for development,

nor revise its policy on Section 106 compliance for

base closures.

The city plans to redevelop the razed site with 

market-rate townhouses, a nursing home and

assisted living facility, a park, and a 1,100-space

parking lot. More recently, the city proposed to

This detail from the

Philadelphia (Pennsylvania)

Naval Hospital’s Building 1

suggests why it earned the

distinction as one of the

finest Art Deco buildings 

in the city.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 38 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

rezone part of the property adjacent to Veterans

Stadium to permit development of a practice 

facility for the Philadelphia Eagles football team. 

Cyclorama Building Demolition, Gettysburg

National Military Park, Pennsylvania

The fate of the National Register-eligible Cyclorama

Building confronted the Council with a particularly

vexing challenge as it weighed the merits of two preservation outcomes: restoration of the historic landscape

of Gettysburg, versus protection and continued use of

a structure of architectural importance.

The issue, played out within the larger context of

National Park Service plans to utilize a publicprivate partnership for development of a new visitor

center, proved to be controversial, dividing the public between those who sought new strategies for

meeting the fiscal and visitor needs of the park, and

those who argued that such strategies could conflict

with the park’s historic values.

In 1999, the National Park Service inaugurated an

extensive program of landscape restoration at

Gettysburg National Military Park. It planned to construct a new visitor center and museum complex and

to demolish the existing non-historic visitor center, as

well as the Cyclorama Building, whose visitor center

function was outgrown soon after it was constructed

in the 1960s. With a drum-shaped exhibition theater,

the Cyclorama Building was named for the 19thcentury painting it was designed to exhibit: a

panoramic depiction of the pivotal Civil War battle

action, Pickett’s Charge. (The painting carries the

unique designation of a “National Historic Object”

pursuant to the Historic Sites Act of 1935.) 

The park favored removal of the structures, not

expressly to make way for the proposed new complex, but to restore the historic landscape where the

buildings stand, a site of important battle activity

relating to the scenes depicted in the Cyclorama

painting. In turn, the new visitor center and museum, which would exhibit the Cyclorama painting

and house the park’s extensive collections, would be

located where research indicates there were no

important battle-related events.

For Section 106 purposes, the park had reached consensus with the Pennsylvania State Historic

Preservation Officer early in the planning process that

the Cyclorama Building, like the existing visitor center, was ineligible for listing on the National Register.

However, the Society of Architectural Historians

challenged that determination. The Council referred

the issue to the Keeper of the National Register, who

determined that the property, built between 1958 and

1962, is exceptionally significant despite being less

than 50 years old because of its association with

NPS’s “Mission 66” construction program and its

architect, Richard Neutra. 

Chairman Slater acknowledged both the importance

of Gettysburg to the American public and the conflicts among competing resources by appointing a

working group of Council members to provide policy

guidance to Council staff. Members Bruce D. Judd,

FAIA (expert member), Parker Westbrook (citizen

member), and Herbert Franklin, representing the

Architect of the Capitol, participated in site visits,

consultation meetings, and discussions concerning the

broader implications of the proposals. 

In May 1999, the working group issued a report, A

Problem of Common Ground, which endorsed the

NPS proposal to remove the Cyclorama Building as

part of its larger restoration of the historic battlefield

landscape at Gettysburg. A copy of the report was

formally transmitted to Secretary of the Interior Bruce

Babbitt in light of the special interest he had shown 

in the matter. In her transmittal letter, Chairman

Slater noted the unfortunate loss of the National

Register-eligible Cyclorama Building as a consequence

of the difficult decisions faced by the park.

Based on the policy direction set by the report, the

Council consulted with the park, the Pennsylvania

SHPO, and the interested public to develop a

Memorandum of Agreement that provided mitigation

The drum-shaped Cyclorama Building at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania 

was designed by Richard Neutra to exhibit a panoramic depiction 

of Pickett’s Charge.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 39 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

measures to help compensate for the loss of the

Cyclorama Building and appropriate restoration

measures for the historic battlefield landscape and the

Cyclorama painting. The agreement also provides for

later review under Section 106 of the proposed visitor

center and museum.

Defensive Walls Rehabilitation, San Juan

National Historic Site, Puerto Rico

The agreement on how to properly rehabilitate the

historic defensive walls of the San Juan National

Historic Site called for innovation, so the National

Park Service convened an international team of conservation specialists to provide expertise within 

the context of the

public Section 106

review. The technical problems associated with rehabilitating the historic

walls around the

San Juan National

Historic Site require

that the best principles of conservation

science be applied.

However, the significance of the property and its importance to the public

also require that

expert advice on

treatment decisions

be informed by 

public dialogue.

In 1997, the National Park Service began a project to

rehabilitate the historic defensive walls surrounding

the San Juan National Historic Site. In addition to

being a unit of the National Park System, the historic

district encompassed by the walls is listed in the

National Register and, along with the adjacent

fortress La Fortaleza, was designated a World

Heritage Site in 1983.

After completing repairs and stabilization treatments,

NPS proposed to cover the walls with a mixture of stucco and mortar. The Puerto Rico State Historic

Preservation Officer objected to NPS’s determination of

no adverse effect for this aspect of the project, arguing

that the stucco treatment would jeopardize the walls’

structural integrity by trapping moisture. In addition,

the SHPO held that stucco would compromise the

walls’ visual integrity by covering and destroying the

surface, which the SHPO considered an important 

character-defining feature because of its patina of age.

After the stuccoing project was initiated on the north

wall, the Puerto Rico SHPO asked the Council to

investigate the status of NPS compliance with

Section 106. The questions this raised, coupled with

evident physical problems with the stucco application, led NPS and the SHPO to enter into an agreement in January 1998 which detailed a plan of

approach for addressing both the disputed north

wall project and the remaining sections of the wall. 

The Council supported the proposed conceptual

approach. NPS and the SHPO included the Council

as a full participant and, through the U.S. National

Committee of the International Council on

Monuments and Sites, allowed technical and philosophical issues to be explored by an international

team of conservation specialists. The Council

observed the meetings of the expert committee in

June 1999, which included onsite inspections, presentations by NPS and the SHPO, review of documentary materials, dialogue with interested parties,

and deliberations among the panelists. 

The committee recommended specific methods and

techniques to implement a program of minimal

intervention which, while intensive, consist only of

“those actions which will protect existing fabric and

slow down decay.” The recommended approach was

deemed by the group to be the most respectful of the

multiplicity of values associated with the site and the

one that most effectively allows for the preservation

of extant historic fabric. 

As part of the January 1998 agreement in which NPS

and the SHPO outlined measures to address the park’s

Section 106 responsibilities for this project, the

Council is working further with NPS, the SHPO, and

the interested public to develop a Programmatic

Agreement for implementation of the interdisciplinary

committee’s recommendations.

Tustin Marine Corps Air Station 

Closure and Disposal, California

As part of the Base Realignment and Closure Act of

1990, the Tustin Marine Corps Air Station in

California was identified for closure. The installation

boasts two of the largest wooden buildings in the

Within the context of Section 106

review, an international team of conservation experts recommended ways to

protect existing fabric and slow decay

of the defensive walls surrounding the

San Juan National Historic Site.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 40 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

world: dirigible hangars

built in WWII and listed in

the National Register.

Besides involving such a rare

type of historic property, this

case also featured unique

procedural problems. In an

unprecedented action by the

California legislature, the

State Historic Preservation

Officer was required to agree

to the City of Tustin’s

assumption of the SHPO’s

prescribed duties within the redevelopment project’s

survey area. The Council issued a legal opinion concluding that the State could not unilaterally delegate

the SHPO’s role and responsibilities under Section

106. The SHPO later rejoined consultation.

The Tustin Marine Corps Air Station is known for

its two wooden dirigible hangars built by the

Navy during World War II to house naval patrol

blimps. Listed in the National Register since 1974,

the hangars are recognized as among the largest

wooden buildings in the world. In 1997, the

installation was identified for closure under the

Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of

1990, which allows the military to quickly dispose

of excess facilities to local communities for reuse

and economic revitalization.

The proposed local reuse plan for the air station

would redevelop a portion of it as a regional park to

include one of the two historic hangars. Initially, however, the proposed new owner, Orange County,

opposed accepting the property with any preservation

restrictions that might hamper the development of a

park master plan. The City of Tustin, acting as the

Local Reuse Authority, also initially opposed the

transfer of the property with preservation restrictions,

and did not want to implement a marketing plan to

identify interest in the second hangar. 

When the Marine Corps initiated Section 106 consultation in 1997, the Council and the California

State Historic Preservation Officer voiced concern

over the fate of the hangars, but the Marine Corps

suspended discussion on the case during 1998.

An unprecedented action followed: the California

legislature enacted a law that required the SHPO to

agree to the city’s assumption of the SHPO’s prescribed duties within the redevelopment project’s

survey area. 

At the request of the California Preservation Foundation (the statewide, nonprofit preservation organization), the Council issued a legal opinion concluding the State could not unilaterally delegate the

SHPO’s role and responsibilities. Under Section 106

at the time, a Certified Local Government such as the

City of Tustin could only assume the SHPO’s Section

106 responsibilities if the Council, the SHPO, and

the local government agreed to it. (The issue later

became moot, since the Council’s 1999 regulations

no longer provided for the delegation of SHPO

responsibilities to Certified Local Governments.)

Following productive meetings between the SHPO

and State officials, the SHPO rejoined consultation

when the Navy reinitiated it. In December 1999, the

Council executed a Memorandum of Agreement for

the disposal and reuse of the air station. The SHPO

was a signatory, despite earlier questions regarding

his status due to the State legislation. 

The MOA provided standards for marketing the station’s historic blimp hangars and required that they

be transferred with a preservation covenant if an

economically viable, adaptive use is identified

through the marketing. If either hangar should be

transferred without a preservation covenant, the

recipient will be required to document the hangar

complex through a written history, the development

of an interpretive exhibit, and the preparation of a

professional-quality documentary video.

SPRAWL

Highway 31 Expansion, Michigan

Traffic congestion is getting worse in many places, but

when the solutions to the problem threaten the character of a National Register-listed community, the

responsible Federal agency and consulting parties must

consider how best to mitigate adverse effects. Although

Federal, State, and local agencies agree that seasonal

traffic congestion is a serious problem for the historic

Bay View community in the Lake Michigan resort

town of Petoskey, Michigan, not all have agreed on the

alternatives. Since traffic congestion is a significant

condition within other Lake Michigan resort communities, it is hoped that the successful resolution of 

This wooden dirigible hangar

at Tustin Naval Base in

California, built by the 

Navy during World War II 

to house patrol blimps, is

among the largest wooden

buildings in the world.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 41 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

competing values in Petoskey,

such as transportation needs,

historic preservation, land

use, and managed growth,

can serve as a useful model

for similar communities.

The Federal Highway

Administration plans to assist

the Michigan Department of

Transportation (MDOT)

with a road improvement

project in Emmet County,

Michigan. The project is

intended to alleviate current

and projected traffic congestion, especially through the

National Historic Landmark

community of Bay View in

the City of Petoskey. 

FHWA, MDOT, our agency,

the National Trust for

Historic Preservation, Resort

and Bear Creek Townships,

Emmet County, and other

consulting parties agree that

seasonal traffic congestion in Petoskey is a serious

problem affecting the Bay View NHL. There is also

general consensus that the preservation of historic

properties, particularly rural historic landscapes with

their open space and vistas, is essential to maintaining

the character of the Petoskey community.

FHWA widened US-31 in Petoskey in the early 1980s,

but any further widening through Bay View has been

prohibited by the courts. In order to examine other

alternatives to deal with traffic congestion, Congress

authorized Federal demonstration funds in 1987 to

study a bypass and local economic improvement for

the Petoskey area. 

As a result of that and subsequent studies, FHWA

proposes to construct a 16-kilometer bypass that will

take US-31 south, around the City of Petoskey, into

the surrounding, still predominately agricultural

townships. FHWA proposes to phase construction of

and control access to the proposed Far South bypass.

Initially, it would be constructed as a two-lane, limited-access boulevard. However, FHWA would purchase right-of-way for expansion to four lanes in the

future. FHWA also considered another alternative

located much closer to the City of Petoskey, but it

was rejected by the city because of its significant

social and environmental impacts.

If the Far South alternative is implemented, FHWA

has determined that it cannot avoid adverse effects to

several historic properties, including the Old Bear

Creek Township Hall, the Four-Mile Clearing

Historic District, and a newly proposed Resort

Township rural historic district. In addition, FHWA

acknowledges that implementation of the preferred

alternative may, in the foreseeable future, affect other

historic properties as well. 

In particular, the local community is concerned that

construction of the Far South alternative will encourage “sprawl” development, especially in the area surrounding the bypass. The City of Petoskey and

Emmet County remain among the State’s most popular resort areas, and major new developments such

as the Bay Harbor Development and the Crooked

Tree golf course have already compromised the

integrity of the rural landscape. This is a serious issue

for the National Trust, which placed Petoskey on its

annual list of the 11-most-endangered historic places

in 1996 because of the threat of sprawl.

Some consulting parties, in particular Resort and

Bear Creek Townships, support the improvement of

local roads. Beginning in September 1997, the city,

townships, and MDOT began meeting with State

and Congressional representatives to examine possible local road alternatives. In February 1999, FHWA

and MDOT agreed to prepare a supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement for a new alternative called the Intertown Road alignment. This alternative, which focuses on using existing local roads,

was determined feasible by FHWA and has been

under study for the past year. FHWA plans to distribute the draft supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement and conduct public hearings in 2000.

Woodrow Wilson Bridge Replacement, 

Virginia-Maryland

Construction of a new bridge across the Potomac

River is imperative due to the ever-increasing

Washington, DC, Beltway traffic and the deterioration of the current bridge, now nearly 40 years old.

In its plan for a new bridge, the Federal Highway

Administration was taken to court by historic

preservation groups over several environmental and

historic preservation laws. 

FHWA proposes to construct

a bypass to U.S. 31, shown

here, that will adversely 

affect the rural historic 

landscape surrounding

Petosky, Michigan.

The proposed bypass, rendered above, would be built

as a two-land boulevard but

have the potential to expand

to four lanes in the future.

Residents fear sprawl.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 42 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

The litigation raised questions about the Section 106

process’ phasing of the identification of historic properties and assessment of effects, but a subsequent

finding by an appeals panel upheld this frequently

used, flexible approach to the regulations.

In cooperation with the Maryland State Highway

Administration and the Virginia Department of

Transportation, the Federal Highway

Administration is planning to replace the only property it owns outright: the Woodrow Wilson

Bridge. Spanning the Potomac River between

Alexandria, Virginia, and Prince George’s County,

Maryland, the Wilson Bridge carries Interstate 95—

also part of the Washington, DC, Beltway—and is

one of the most critical transportation links in the

metropolitan area. It is also a drawbridge, which

must open approximately 200 times per year. The

deteriorating bridge currently carries more than

twice the volume for which it was designed in the

1960s, a situation further aggravated by the high

volume of heavy truck traffic. 

Since 1989, FHWA has looked at a number of proposals for replacing the bridge, and produced a Draft

Environmental Impact Statement in 1991, followed

by two supplemental Draft Environmental Impact

Statements in 1996. The preferred alternative is a

pair of side-by-side drawbridges on an alignment

immediately to the south of the existing bridge.

Given the scale of

the undertaking

and its proximity 

to the Alexandria

Historic District, a

National Historic

Landmark, as well

as other National

Register-listed or

eligible properties,

the project has been

viewed as having

an adverse effect

under Section 106.

After several years coordinating with consulting

parties, the Council executed a Memorandum of

Agreement for the project in 1997. The MOA provided for a phased approach to identifying impacts

in the project’s area of potential effects. It deferred

identification of a small number of ancillary activities until prerequisite engineering work can be 

carried out during the final design process. The

agreement was signed by State Historic Preservation Officers and transportation agencies from

Maryland and Virginia; the National Park Service;

the City of Alexandria; Prince George’s County;

and other consulting parties. 

Although a signatory to the agreement, the city

brought suit against FHWA for failing to comply

with the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental

Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act,

and Section 4(f) of the Department of

Transportation Act. The city later withdrew from

the suit after reaching a compromise with FHWA in

which the new bridge would be built to accommodate 12 lanes of traffic but initially would be

marked for ten. 

The intervenors in the lawsuit, however—including

several local organizations and the National Trust

for Historic Preservation—elected to continue the

case. They won in a lower court ruling, which

found that FHWA failed to complete its identification of historic properties under NHPA, including

those that may be affected by construction staging,

dredge disposal, or wetland mitigation. The judge

also ruled that by failing to identify all properties

prior to issuing a Record of Decision under NEPA,

FHWA could not have undertaken “all possible

planning to minimize harm” to historic properties

as required by Section 4(f) of the Department of

Transportation Act. 

The lower court’s finding that all reasonably foreseeable properties and impacts must be identified

prior to a final decision by the agency had troubling

implications for programmatic and process-oriented

agreements that the Council routinely executes.

Many such agreements are in place, which allow

phased survey and identification, particularly in the

case of large corridor projects that potentially

involve many archeological sites. 

FHWA appealed the decision, and the lower

court’s ruling was reversed by a Federal appeals

panel. The unanimous opinion by the three-judge

panel lets stand the 1997 MOA developed in

accordance with Section 106 and the project to go

forward as scheduled. The reversal of the lower

court’s ruling provided welcome support for the

continued use of a frequently used, flexible

approach to Section 106 compliance. 

A pair of side-by-side drawbridges is the

preferred design for a new Wilson Bridge,

which spans Virginia and Maryland over

the Potomac River. (Drawing courtesy 

of Potomac Crossing Consultants and 

the Wilson Bridge Project)
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 43 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Corridor H Highway Construction, 

West Virginia

First considered by Congress in 1965, the proposed

construction of a 110-mile highway within West

Virginia’s Appalachian region is geared toward providing access and stimulating growth in the region.

Because overall project approval preceded a full

understanding of the historic properties affected by

the undertaking, including two Civil War battlefields,

the provisions of the agreement the Council executed

with the Federal Highway Administration allowed

phased compliance with the mandates of Section 106

as the project was developed section by section. 

The agreement also emphasized avoidance of those

properties where feasible. 

Corridor H, a proposed highway that would run for

approximately 110 miles on new alignment, was first

recommended by Congress in 1965 as one of 23 transportation corridors designed to stimulate growth and

access within the Appalachian region. Preliminary 

cultural resource investigations within the

proposed 2000-footwide corridor between

Elkins, West Virginia,

and the Virginia State

line in Strasburg,

Virginia, identified

more than 1,000 structures or districts over

50 years old, of which

only 12 were expected

to be affected.

The Council executed a Programmatic Agreement

for the project in 1995, after assurances from the

Federal Highway Administration and the West

Virginia Department of Highways that enough flexibility existed within the selected corridor to allow the

highway to be relocated in most cases where adverse

effects to historic resources might be expected.

Because overall project approval preceded a full

understanding of the historic properties affected by

the undertaking, the PA allowed phased compliance

with the mandates of Section 106 as the project was

developed section by section. However, it also

emphasized avoiding those properties where feasible.

Unfortunately, the information regarding historic

properties upon which FHWA made preliminary

project decisions proved to be unreliable, and this

has complicated project development. Intense public

scrutiny, too, has highlighted the differences between

State and national practice in evaluating which properties should be considered eligible for inclusion in

the National Register and in assessing the nature of

project effects. In 1998, the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia ordered that FHWA be

enjoined from constructing portions of the Corridor

H highway pending resolution of a complaint

brought under Section 4(f) of the Department of

Transportation Act by a local citizens’ group.

Meanwhile, consultants for the West Virginia

Department of Highways presented an alternative

based on a mitigation plan for sections of the highway

adjacent to a Civil War property, the Corrick’s Ford

Battlefield. The use of raised roadway structures, narrow medians and shoulders, and retaining walls

would virtually eliminate major cuts across the face of

Fork Mountain, an important component of the battlefield. In addition, the West Virginia Department of

Highways has begun evaluating alternatives to construction near another Civil War property, the

Moorefield Battlefield, to avoid adverse effects.

In accordance with review provisions of the PA, the

Council is now consulting with FHWA on the project’s impacts to the two Civil War battlefields and

other National Register-eligible properties.

NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES

Imperial Mine Development, California

This project highlights potential conflicts between

Section 106 and the Mining Act of 1872, which governs

Federal regulation of private mining claims on public

lands. In this case, the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) is reviewing a plan of operations submitted by a

corporation for the development of an open-pit gold

mine in eastern Imperial County, California. It is not

clear, however, to what extent BLM has the ability to

prohibit mining activities that have serious effects on

historic resources, including a historic district called the

Indian Pass-Running Man Area of Traditional Cultural

Concern. The historic district is important to 

the Quechan Tribe for its role in the practice and 

transmittal of traditional religious and cultural beliefs. 

The California State Office of BLM is reviewing a

plan of operations submitted by Glamis Imperial

Corporation for the development of an open-pit gold

Strong participation by the public in the

Section 106 review process prompted

FHWA to develop an alternative less

destructive to Corrick’s Ford Battlefield

and other historic properties.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 44 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

mine in eastern Imperial County. The plan was 

submitted pursuant to the Mining Act of 1872 and in

accordance with BLM regulations. The proposed

mine, which would be located within the California

Desert Conservation area, has three major components: a 1,571-acre mine and processing area; an

ancillary area of 38 acres for water wells and utility

corridors; and a 16-mile upgraded transmission line.

Cultural resource studies conducted by BLM identified numerous historic properties within the area of

potential effects, among them the Indian

Pass-Running Man Area of Traditional Cultural

Concern, a historic district of central importance to

the Quechan Tribe for its role in the practice and

transmittal of traditional religious and cultural

beliefs. BLM and the California State Historic

Preservation Officer concurred that the area is 

eligible for listing in the National Register.

BLM proposed several

measures to protect significant cultural features, including flagging

them and erecting temporary barriers to keep

heavy equipment from

straying out of targeted

construction areas; conducting archeological

data recovery; withdrawing certain adjacent lands from mining;

and providing funding or materials to the tribe for educational and research purposes. The Quechan tribe contends that the loss of their traditional culture cannot be

mitigated by the proposed measures. 

The Council is involved in this case under the 1997

nationwide Programmatic Agreement for BLM

undertakings. In recognition of the complex nature

of this project, Chairman Slater appointed Native

Hawaiian Council member Ray Soon and representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency

and the National Trust for Historic Preservation to a

working group to advise and direct Council staff. 

At a six-hour, on-site public meeting in March 1999,

more than 50 people spoke, a substantial majority

opposing the mine. In July, representatives from BLM

and Glamis met with the working group and staff at the

Council’s Washington, DC, headquarters. Glamis urged

consultation to find acceptable mitigation that would

allow the project to go forward and later provided the

Council with additional information on its cultural

resource investigations for the proposed gold mine.

In spite of BLM and Glamis’s proposed mitigation

measures, the Council working group determined that

the mine and its operation would unduly degrade the

Indian Pass-Running Man Area of Traditional Cultural

Concern by introducing activities and intrusions

incompatible with the historic area, essentially resulting in the destruction of the Quechan tribe’s ability to

practice and transmit to future generations the ceremonies and values that sustain the tribe’s cultural existence. In formal comments issued October 19, 1999, to

the Secretary of the Interior, the Council asked that the

Department of the Interior take whatever legal means

available to deny approval for the project. 

Mount Shasta Ski Area Construction 

and Operation, Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest, California

This eight-year case highlights the controversy that

sometimes surrounds the consideration of a very

large land form for National Register eligibility. Mt.

Shasta is an imposing volcano, visible over a wide

area of northern California and considered spiritually important to many Native American tribes. Local

landowners and community leaders within the

National Register-eligible boundary were up in arms,

however, about the designation of such a large area,

and even had congressional support through a bill

introduced in the House of Representatives. 

Such local community and political pressure made it

difficult for the Forest Service and the Keeper of the

National Register to accommodate the tribes’ perspective on the National Register-eligible boundary. In the

end, however, the well-orchestrated grassroots efforts

of a community organization and consultation with

Indian tribes regarding a proposed ski area, influenced

the Forest Service’s decision to prevent the ski area’s

construction in the National Register district. 

In 1990, the U.S. Forest Service signed a Record of

Decision approving a proposed ski area at Mt.

Shasta, a large volcano visible over a wide area of

Northern California. The proposed development

would replace a ski area that was destroyed in an

avalanche in the mid-1970s. The State Historic

Preservation Officer had concurred with a Forest

Service determination that no historic properties

Among the historic properties 

within the mining project’s area 

of potential effects was the Indian 

Pass-Running Man Area of 

Traditional Cultural Concern.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 45 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

were located in the area of potential effect. 

Soon after, however, the SHPO was contacted by

representatives from local Indian tribes, who

expressed concern about the spiritual significance of

Mt. Shasta and how that significance might be

affected by the proposed ski area. The SHPO

requested the Forest Service to investigate these concerns, and the Forest Service began an investigation

of Native American traditional use of Mount Shasta.

Based on the ethnographic study it commissioned, the

Forest Service determined that Mt. Shasta is a landmark of major cosmological and spiritual importance

to the Shasta, Modoc, Wintu, Karuk, Pitt River, and

other Indian tribes as a place of considerable spiritual

power. Places on the mountain, such as Panther

Meadow, continue to be used for ceremonies. At the

urging of the Council, the Forest Service requested a

determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the

National Register on traditional Native American use

of the mountain. The Keeper found the entire mountain eligible as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP)

National Register district, because of its cosmological

and mythological significance to these tribes. The district boundary comprised both Forest Service property

and a considerable amount of privately owned land.

Intense public interest in the preservation of the mountain resulted in an “interested persons” list of more

than 500 people and the inception of a “Save Mount

Shasta” group. Another group, opposed to the large

boundary designation, invited the Keeper to a public

meeting in 1994. As a result of the meeting, the Keeper

re-opened the boundary issue to additional public

comment and, based on comments received and the

Keeper’s determination that much of the mountain

lacked integrity due to timbering activities, significantly reduced the National Register district boundary.

While this change may have addressed the concerns 

of local officials

and landowners

who had property

within the original

district boundary,

the new decision

was devastating to

the tribes and

Native American

practitioners, who

saw the reduction

of the historic 

district boundary

as politically motivated and failing to take into

account their perspective.

That same year, Council staff met with Forest Service

officials and Native American representatives on how

to proceed with Section 106 consultation on the proposed ski area. The Council also provided them with

technical assistance on numerous occasions. The

Council was especially concerned with the cumulative

effect of permitting the ski area on Mt. Shasta, as the

developer had produced a master plan for development

of a ski village and year-round recreation in association

with the ski area. In its subsequent comments to the

Forest Service, the Council advised the agency to consider the possible impact of this related development

on places of traditional cultural significance, both

within and beyond the revised TCP district boundary. 

In spite of the short-lived bill, H.R. 563––introduced

in the House of Representatives in 1995 to amend the

National Historic Preservation Act to prohibit “any

unimproved or unmodified natural landscape feature

which does not contain artifacts or other physical evidence of human activity” and specifically prohibit the

designation of Mt. Shasta as a historic district, site, or

national monument––the Forest Service revoked 

the ski area construction permit in 1998 before

consultation to resolve adverse effects started.

Although the permit was revoked, Native American

representatives remained dissatisfied with the TCP

district boundary and were concerned with the

Forest Service’s overall management of Mt. Shasta.

The tribes and the Save Mount Shasta group requested the Keeper to meet with tribes, reconsider enlarging the National Register district boundary, and continue to press the Forest Service to hold consultation

meetings to discuss the boundary and the need for a

cultural resources management plan for Mt. Shasta.

The Council has also encouraged the Forest Service

to resolve these issues with the tribe and offered 

recommendations for future management planning.

Rowland Trust Estates Construction, Florida

Within the boundaries of the site of the most important battle of the Second Seminole War near

Okeechobee, Florida, a developer has applied for a

permit to build a residential subdivision. Since the

140-acre site—a National Historic Landmark—is privately owned, this project underscores the need for the

integration of historic preservation considerations at

the local planning level.

The Keeper of the Register found Mt. Shasta

eligible for listing as a Traditional Cultural

Property National Register district, because

of its cosmological and mythological 

significance to numerous Indian tribes.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 46 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Consultation on this case must address the battlefield’s

importance to both the Seminole and Miccosukee

Tribes as a traditional cultural property and sacred

site. As proposed, the subdivision could strip the site

of its National Historic Landmark status. 

In 1961, the Okeechobee Battlefield in southern

Florida was designated a National Historic Landmark

as the location of the pivotal battle of the 1837 Second

Seminole War. General Zachary Taylor won a decisive

victory at the battle over the largest concentration of

Seminole and Miccosukee warriors during the war. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is reviewing a

developer’s application for a Section 404 permit to

construct a 300-lot residential subdivision, called

Rowland Trust Estates, on a key portion of the battlefield site—where the Seminoles were positioned

during the battle. 

In 1997, the Corps formally determined that the project would adversely affect the battlefield, and initiated

consultation with the Council. The Council expressed

concern for the importance of the site to the Seminole

and Miccosukee Tribes as a property of traditional religious and cultural significance. Both tribes raised these

concerns and others about development on the site,

which may contain Indian burials. The Council also

noted that the proposed residential development could

strip this nationally significant property of its historical

integrity, and consequently, its NHL status. 

The threat posed to the site’s integrity led the National

Park Service to list the battlefield as a Priority 1

Endangered Landmark, a ranking generally reserved for

NHL properties that are unlikely to survive for more

than a few more years, because they have either been so

severely damaged or are so imminently threatened. 

After the Corps’ reinitiated review of the project following additional project planning by the applicant,

the Corps called a meeting to explore alternatives to

commercial and residential development on the property, as required by Section 106. Council staff attended the meeting along with the Seminole and

Miccosukee Tribes, the Florida State Historic

Preservation Officer, Okeechobee County, Rowland

Trust representatives, and a congressional representative. The meeting explored a variety of feasible alternatives to developing the land, including purchasing it

for preservation, and setting aside a portion of the 

battlefield for commemoration and education.

South Lawrence Trafficway 

Construction, Kansas

In the mid-1960s, the buildings and historic cemetery of Haskell Institute, a Native American university in Lawrence, Kansas, earned the status of a

National Historic Landmark. The designation, however, did not recognize the area south of campus to

the Wakarusa River, historically part of the university, that contains properties of religious and cultural significance to the university community and

more than 47 tribes locally and nationally.

Controversy surrounding

the property’s undesignated areas began nearly

three decades later, when

the Federal Highway

Administration decided

to fund construction of a

four-lane county highway

that would adversely

affect not only the historic university but the

adjacent culturally significant area that has yet to

be formally evaluated for

its National-Register eligibility and contribution

to the NHL.

In the 1960s, Douglas

County, Kansas, began

planning a 14-mile highway on the periphery of the

city of Lawrence. Called the South Lawrence

Trafficway, the plan called for a four-lane, high-speed

highway to link routes K-10, U.S. 59, and the Kansas

Turnpike (I-70), to reduce congestion on local thoroughfares. In 1990, the Federal Highway

Administration issued a Record of Decision under the

National Environmental Policy Act to fund the project.

The project was split into two legs, and construction

began on the nine-mile western leg. After several years

of dispute regarding the environmental impacts of the

five-mile eastern leg, the county withdrew its application

for FHWA funding for that phase of the project. This led

to two successful challenges in Federal court by students

and alumni from Haskell Indian Nations University on

the legality of FHWA’s attempt to avoid compliance

with applicable environmental laws. Pursuant to the

court order, FHWA resumed environmental analyses of

the proposed highway in February 1999. 

Baker Wetlands, an area that 

was historically part of Haskell

Institute, a National Historic

Landmark, is of historical, 

cultural, and religious 

significance to the 

university community 

and many Indian tribes.
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 47 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

As part of that effort, FHWA initiated consultation

with the Council, in response to the Council’s determination that all three of the highway’s proposed eastern

leg “build” alignments would adversely affect the

Baker Wetlands and the southern part of the Haskell

Institute National Historic Landmark. Designated in

the 1960s, the Haskell Institute NHL–significant as

one of the first large off-reservation boarding schools

for Indian students established by the Federal

Government–contains numerous historic buildings

from the boarding school period and a historic cemetery. Not evaluated for the NHL is the southern part of

the campus, an open area where sweat lodges are used

and a medicine wheel is located. Also important is the

Baker Wetlands, a National Natural Landmark wetlands, historically part of Haskell, that is of historical,

cultural, and religious significance to the university

community and many Indian tribes.

The Council determined that the proposed “build”

alignments would adversely affect the two areas with

visual, noise, and atmospheric impacts and changes to

their historic setting. Although FHWA determined

that the southern part of the campus near the medicine

wheel was eligible for the National Register, the Baker

Wetlands has yet to be fully and formally evaluated for

its National-Register eligibility and contribution to the

Haskell NHL.

In May 1999, the Council participated in an interagency meeting and on-site visit to the NHL and the

Baker Wetlands, and wrote to FHWA asking for

additional studies of the wetlands that might contribute to the significance of the Haskell Institute

NHL and have historical, religious, and cultural significance to both the university community and

Indian tribes. The Council also requested that the

National Park Service prepare a report pursuant to

Section 213 of the National Historic Preservation

Act to provide its updated perspective on the significance of the NHL, including the contribution of the

Baker Wetlands, how the proposed project would

affect the NHL, and what measures should be taken

to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of the

highway. The National Park Service indicated that it

would complete the report upon receipt of additional studies from FHWA to identify and evaluate the

significance of the wetlands. 

That October, FHWA, the Kansas Department of

Transportation, Douglas County, and other cooperating agencies met with the Haskell University Board of

Regents to make a final attempt to win its unqualified

support. At the Board’s invitation, the Council made a

presentation that emphasized FHWA’s Section 106

responsibility to complete the process of identifying

and evaluating historic properties, including the Baker

Wetlands, that could be affected by the project, before

developing mitigation measures. The Council emphasized the need for FHWA to consult with Indian tribes

who attach religious and cultural significance to

Haskell and the Baker Wetlands. Haskell students and

a student organization opposed to the project also

made presentations. After the meeting, the Board of

Regents unanimously voted to reject the project.

Cushman Hydroelectric Project 

Relicensing, Washington

Concern with the effects of Tacoma’s Cushman

Hydroelectric Project on historic properties was but

one of many environmental and cultural issues surrounding this Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission relicensing process, which involved substantial public controversy, frequent disputes among

the consulting parties, requests for rehearing and,

ultimately, a lawsuit against the license applicant and

the U.S. Government. 

Sometimes Federal agencies may reasonably defer

final identification and consideration of a project’s

effects to historic properties until after a licensing decision is reached. This case, however, demonstrates that

if traditional cultural properties are present, the 

alternative selected by a Federal agency may make a

critical difference in the ability of a traditional 

community to continue using such properties for 

cultural and religious activities. 

From 1992 to 1998, the Council consulted with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the

Cushman Hydroelectric Project in Washington

State. In the undertaking, FERC considered an

application from the City of Tacoma to license the

hydroelectric project located on the North Fork

Skokomish River in Mason County. 

The hydro project comprises two National Register

historic districts. The Powerhouse No. 1 district

includes a powerhouse and a dam impounding Lake

Cushman and is significant as an example of 1920sera hydroelectric technology of the American West.

The Cushman No. 2 Powerhouse district is situated

downstream on and adjacent to the Skokomish

Indian Reservation. It includes a dam impounding
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 48 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Lake Kokanee and is significant as an example of

state-of-the-art high head hydroelectric technology

from the early 1930s. It also includes an architecturally distinguished powerhouse, characterized by a

monumental scale and Neoclassical design. 

In addition, the

project area

includes a large

prehistoric site

located on the

Lake Cushman

shoreline and a

chipped stone

procurement

site located in

the drawdown

zone of the

Lake Cushman

reservoir. A city

consultant identified 72 ethnographic sites of potential

cultural significance within the Skokomish River/Lake

Cushman drainage system, including three National

Register-eligible traditional cultural property districts.

TCPs are generally determined eligible for the

National Register for their association with cultural

practices or beliefs of a living community rooted in its

history and important in maintaining its continuing

cultural identity. In this case, the three TCP districts

were procurement sites, important to the Skokomish

as places for community and family gatherings and

harvesting shellfish; settlement sites, valued for food

and non-food resources; and salmon fishing sites,

vital to the tribe’s past and present economy and 

cultural life.

Throughout the extended Section 106 review

process, the Skokomish Indian Tribe and the city

were at odds over licensing of the project, which has

substantially reduced the flow of water in the North

Fork and mainstem Skokomish River. The tribe

asserted that their reservation and the traditional

lifeways of its people have been severely affected by

the river’s alteration and operation of the project.

The tribe proposed that the project should be relicensed only if the North Fork Skokomish River was

restored to support anadromous fish. FERC and the

city took the position, however, that the licensing

process’ environmental and cultural resource review

should only consider the marginal impacts of

changes from existing project operations.

Because of repeated objections to cultural resource

studies and disagreements among the parties about

the process, FERC terminated a 1994 Programmatic

Agreement for the undertaking and soon thereafter

terminated consultation with the Council. In its letter terminating consultation, FERC proposed it

would require the city to finalize identification of

TCPs after a license is issued. In response, Council

Chairman Cathy Slater argued that the identification of historic properties and effects should be

completed before a licensing decision. The Council

urged FERC to adopt an alternative consistent with

the recommendations, conditions, and prescriptions

of the Departments of Interior and Commerce for

substantial restoration of pre-project water flows to

the North Fork and Skokomish River, and the inclusion of hatchery support and fish passage for the

restoration of anadromous fish resources above the

two project dams. The Council determined that

these measures would best mitigate the adverse

effects of the project on the TCP districts. 

Issued in 1998, the project license included FERC’s

response to the Council’s comments on the undertaking. The licensing order included a series of articles requiring the city to revise its Cultural Resources

Management Plan to address recommendations for

the evaluation and protection of archeological properties. The licensee was also required to increase minimum flow in the North Fork Skokomish River and

to install and operate fish passage downstream and

upstream from the project. It fell short, however, of

fully adopting the recommendations of the Council,

and thus raised questions about the viability of the

adopted measures. 

In 1999, the Skokomish Tribe filed suit for $5.8 billion against the city and the U.S. Government for

damages related to the project’s construction and

operation. FERC has stayed the license requirements

until the courts can review the legal issues involved. 

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

El Rancho Electric Substation Construction,

New Mexico

By challenging orthodox views of what constitutes

an historic resource, properties of traditional cultural significance can confront project planners and the

Section 106 process with unique issues. As this case

illustrates, such challenges are even more difficult to

Penstocks are diverting water from the 

North Fork Skokomish River to Cushman

Powerhouse No. 2. (Photo courtesy of 

Tacoma Public Utilities)
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 49 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

resolve if the properties are identified after project

decisions have already been made. Early outreach to

affected communities is the most effective way to

avoid these problems. 

This unusual case resulted in the execution of an

agreement for the treatment of effects of an electric

substation in El Rancho, New Mexico, that had

already been built on a traditional Hispanic dance

site. Because of a court injunction against the substation’s operation, the nearly completed $1 million

facility sat idle for eight years. The Council entered

into consultation where it normally does not, to

assist the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Rural

Utilities Service in complying with a Federal court

order to complete after-the-fact Section 106 consultation for the project. The Council also assisted the

local community with resolving its concerns. 

In 1989, the San Ildefonso Tribal Council and the

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) approved a lease with

the Jemez Mountain Electric Cooperative to build a

new electric substation on San Ildefonso Pueblo land

near El Rancho, New Mexico. The one-acre substation would replace a nearby temporary facility. The

Rural Electrification Administration (now the Rural

Utilities Service or RUS) approved financial assistance for the project in 1990. Both actions were

conditioned on the cooperative completing a cultural resource survey as required by Section 106, prior

to the start of construction.

The cooperative began constructing the substation in

November 1990 without the required survey. It was

soon determined, however, that the construction created a significant visual intrusion to an adjacent

National Register-eligible site where traditional

Hispanic matachines dances are performed.

Although the Council contacted both RUS and BIA

in early 1991, both agencies indicated an unwillingness to consider dismantling and/or relocating the

substation because of the costs involved. The New

Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer agreed

with the Council that unless removal of the substation received serious consideration, meaningful 

consultation under Section 106 was impossible. 

In 1991, El Rancho La Communidad de Tres Culturas,

representing the local community and users of the

dance site, filed suit to stop construction. The district

court judge issued a temporary restraining order to

stop further construction and ordered BIA and RUS to

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act

and the National Historic Preservation Act. The agencies completed an Environmental Impact Statement

and, in 1997, issued a decision under NEPA, selecting

the existing location for the substation. 

NHPA compliance, however, remained unfulfilled. To

assist RUS and BIA with the judge’s order, the

Council struck a compromise with the agencies. So

that Section 106 consultation could proceed, BIA suspended its decision. Reversing its earlier position, BIA

indicated a willingness to consider a full range of

options for treating the adverse effects of the substation on the dance site, including locating the facility

elsewhere. Consultation proceeded, but the consulting

parties were unable to identify a reasonable alternative

location. In 1998, the Council rejected BIA’s first

Memorandum of Agreement that called for construction of a large concrete screening wall on two sides of

the substation, which did not fully address the concerns of the local community. That year Council members visited the site in conjunction with their quarterly

business meeting, and staff subsequently met with the

local community to explore other mitigation measures. 

In 1999, the Council, the SHPO, BIA, and RUS executed a revised MOA for the project, concluding Section

106 review. The agreement included a clear statement

objecting to the substation’s location by the members of

El Rancho La Communidad de Tres Culturas; a

requirement that natural earthen berms and vegetation

be used to screen the substation from the dance site and

the entry to the community; and a provision for $7,500

to be made available to El Rancho to either improve an

alternate dance location or to undertake other efforts to

promote and protect the continuing vitality of the 

community’s matachines dance tradition. 

The agreement also called for additional consultation

between the cooperative and El Rancho on the vegetative screening plan, and Council approval of the

final plan and use of the $7,500. While the local community remains opposed to the substation at its present location and declined to sign the MOA, the final

document incorporated nearly all of the community’s

recommendations for screening the substation.

Allen Parkway Village Redevelopment, Texas

Community participation was critical to the development of a comprehensive mitigation plan for this

project, which involved the redevelopment of a
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 50 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

National Register-listed public housing complex and

an adjacent historic community developed by freed

slaves in Houston, Texas. Consultation for this

undertaking was complex given the objections of

some residents to

any redevelopment that would

not preserve the

housing complex

in its entirety. The

case also had to

consider potential

effects on archeological sites identified during preliminary testing,

including human

remains associated with a cemetery removed in

1941 to build the

housing complex.

As a result of 

successfully integrating historic

preservation into

the design of 

the redevelopment project, the Department of

Housing and Urban Development and other housing

authorities now have a case study on the importance

of consultation with tenant groups and the community when considering the fate of an historic public

housing complex. For more than 25 years, the disposition of Allen Parkway Village, a National Register

public housing complex built in 1941, was the subject of review by the Department of Housing and

Urban Development. After receiving funds from different HUD programs, in 1994 the city submitted a

demolition and disposition which triggered Section

106 review. The application called for the revitalization of the distressed public housing project.

Redevelopment focused on reducing the housing

complex’s density and constructing mixed-income

housing that would attract a more economically

diverse population. 

In December 1995, the Council executed a

Memorandum of Agreement for the redevelopment

project with HUD, the Texas State Historic

Preservation Officer, and the Housing Authority of

the City of Houston. Consultation focused on

direct and indirect effects to both Allen Parkway

Village and the adjacent Freedmen’s Town Historic

District, a National Register community developed

by freed slaves whose future was of considerable

community concern.

The MOA had anticipated the discovery of burials in

the project and, while the city was preparing for the

new construction, contractors did encounter several

sets of human remains. Under the terms of the MOA,

the signatories developed a plan for the treatment of

the remains, and the Council endorsed the plan’s

implementation procedures. However, in response to

widespread community interest in this late-19thcentury cemetery believed to contain remains of

African Americans, Mayor Lee Brown instructed the

housing authority to halt construction. Residents

and preservation advocates objected to the proposed

treatment plan and requested that the burials be left

in place rather than removed and reinterred.

The city subsequently selected an option to remove

and then reinter the remains on the housing complex’s site. City archeologists analyzed and documented more than 400 human remains from the

site, and a final report, prepared for the consulting

parties and the community, will detail the results of

the excavation and provide an overview of what the

burials and associated artifacts reveal about the former cemetery. The remains will be reinterred in a

cemetery created by the city in the northeast corner

of the redevelopment project. This option did 

not affect the project design, as it used an area 

previously designated for a playground.

Rehabilitation of a portion of Allen Parkway Village

that was to be preserved per the MOA has now been

completed, and elderly residents are moving back

into the section. The consensus among various segments of the community is that the redevelopment

project has exceeded expectations. 

PRESERVING THE RECENT PAST

Lauderdale Courts Renovation, Tennessee

In a case where the preservation of a celebrity’s legacy meets modern housing concerns, Federal, State,

and local housing agencies and historic preservation

groups have come together to determine the fate of

Memphis’s Lauderdale Courts. The 1938 historic

public housing complex, where Elvis Presley lived as

Allen Parkway Village, a circa 1941 public

housing complex in Houston, before it was

revitalized using HUD monies.

With its density reduced, mixed-income

housing now attracts a more economically

diverse population to the historic complex.

(Photo courtesy of Housing Authority of

the City of Houston)
Protecting Historic Properties

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 51 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

a teenager, no longer provides safe, secure, decent

housing for its residents. The Memphis Housing

Authority has initiated a renovation and demolition

project for the complex.

The Memphis Housing Authority (MHA) has initiated a renovation and demolition project for

Lauderdale Courts, a public housing complex located in downtown Memphis. Constructed in 1938 by

the Public Works Administration, Lauderdale Courts

originally contained 449 units in a mix of one- and

two-story buildings arranged around courtyards and

in two larger three-story buildings facing a major

thoroughfare. Consistent with Federal policy and

local law and custom at the time, Lauderdale Courts

was constructed as housing for “whites only.”

Architecturally, the complex is characterized by a

simple, neo-Georgian form, but also exhibits flat

roofs and certain Art Deco details. 

Currently, the complex is in poor physical condition with many units boarded up, abandoned, or in

need of significant repair. The overall site plan,

however, retains all of its significant features and

spaces. MHA is under pressure from the

Department of Housing and Urban Development to

improve conditions in the complex. MHA’s plan for

Lauderdale Courts includes selective demolition of

buildings in each courtyard grouping, renovation of

certain units and “historic preservation” of others,

removal of historic landscape features and their

replacement with parking lots, perimeter security

enhancements, and the demolition of the two

three-story buildings. 

The teenaged Elvis Presley lived in one of the threestory buildings after he and his mother left nearby

Tupelo, Mississippi. During his residence from 1949

to 1953, Elvis received his first guitar and a neighbor

taught him to play it. He practiced in the laundry

room in the basement of this building and performed

publicly for the first time with a group of residents as

“The Golden Boys All-Guitar Band of Lauderdale

Court.” As reported by the Associated Press and

People magazine, there is a vocal, national constituency for preserving these buildings to demonstrate, in part, that there is more to Elvis Presley than

Graceland—that in fact he came from a poor family

and a life in public housing. 

At a 1997 meeting in Memphis, MHA voiced its concern to the Council that local and national interest in

the former home of Elvis was taking precedence over

the needs of the low-income, predominantly

African-American residents and their need for safe

and affordable housing. Local African-American

Elvis enthusiasts and tour operators reported that

tours are already stopping by Lauderdale Courts to

see Elvis’s former home, and said they believe there

are other options for the three-story buildings that

MHA and HUD should consider before agreeing to

the demolition. 

The Council, MHA, HUD, the Tennessee State

Historic Preservation Office, and interested parties

agreed to a general time line that would allow MHA

to secure funds from HUD for the overall renovation

program, while not precluding the consideration of

alternatives to the demolition of the “Elvis buildings.” The Memphis Landmarks Commission

(MLC), the Certified Local Government preservation

review board, would review and comment on

detailed plans for the “non-Elvis buildings” part of

the project in a public meeting. The meeting was held

in 1998 after a special public outreach to Lauderdale

Courts residents. 

Following the public meeting, the Council, HUD,

MHA, MLC, the Tennessee SHPO, and interested

parties addressed how MHA and HUD would

solicit, review, and select proposals for alternative

uses of the “Elvis buildings.” The group agreed in

principle to the terms of a Memorandum of

Agreement, including a series of steps that MHA

would take to market the “Elvis buildings” while

the renovation of the housing on the rest of the site

would go forward. 

Built in 1938, Lauderdale Courts, a public housing complex in

Memphis, Tennessee, is in poor condition, but the overall site 

plan retains its historic features. (Photo courtesy of Memphis

Explorations, Tennessee)
EDUCATING THE PUBLIC

Section V

Section 106 Training, Fort Baker, San Francisco, CA
Educating the Public

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 53 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

AGENCY OUTREACH

In Fiscal Year 1998, regularly scheduled training

open to the public was put on hold pending resolution of the Council’s regulatory revisions. The education program instead focused on new partnership initiatives, preparing for transitional briefings on the

anticipated new regulations, and providing Federal

agencies with specially tailored training. 

An ongoing joint initiative with the Navy and

National Park Service provided Department of

Defense personnel with four sessions of

Introduction to Cultural Resource Management

Laws and Regulations through the Navy’s Civil

Engineer Corps Officers School (CECOS). (CECOS

reimburses staff instruction, travel, and other

expenses associated with developing and updating

instructional materials.)

Through a new interagency agreement with NPS, the

Council also provided training for park managers and

staff involved in Section 106 compliance. Under the

agreement, NPS provided resources to develop and

present a special course for NPS personnel to help

them carry out their preservation responsibilities

under the terms of the NPS nationwide Programmatic

Agreement. In addition, we adapted the CECOS

course for an NPS audience. This joint initiative is an

excellent example of the integral relationship between

training and the Council’s goal of improving Federal

agency historic preservation programs.

Another FY98 joint initiative enabled the Council

to design and present a new briefing for the Army

National Guard that addressed its dual Federal and

State roles. Through our interagency agreement

with the Army, the National Guard Bureau provided resources to design and offer a tailored briefing

session for Army National Guard personnel. The

Council also continued to work with NPS and a

task force of Federal Preservation Officers (FPOs)

to establish a training program for FPOs and their

staff. This multi-agency initiative will better equip

FPOs to develop and implement effective agency

preservation programs.

Regularly scheduled training also remained on hold

in 1999, pending completion and issuance of the

revised regulations and preparation of explanatory

materials. As an alternative, we developed and presented a series of transitional briefings on the new

regulations, while fulfilling responsibilities under

existing partnership initiatives and providing several

Federal agencies with specially tailored training.

By the end of the 1999 fiscal year, 1,585 people in

nine locations had been briefed over an 11-week

period. Forty-seven States, 33 tribes, two western

Pacific islands, and the District of Columbia sent

representatives to the briefings. One hundred and

fifty-seven SHPO staff from 40 States and two western Pacific islands participated in nine additional

follow-up workshops, and 42 representatives of 22

tribes attended three follow-up tribal workshops. 

Special courses were also provided for NPS in the

Pacific West Region and the Denver Service Center,

and for Department of Energy personnel and 

contractors at Argonne National Laboratory. 

Tailored briefings and workshops were presented for

the Army at Fort Bliss; for the Department of

Agriculture’s Rural Development Agency; for the

Midwest and Southeast Regions of the Federal

Highway Administration (with State Departments of

Transportation) and the American Association of

State Highway and Transportation Officials’ annual

meeting; for NPS officials in Hawaii; for New Jersey,

Virginia, and Pennsylvania SHPOs; for Oak Ridge

National Laboratory; for municipalities and Federal

and Commonwealth agencies in Puerto Rico; and at

the Hydroelectric Utilities Roundtable on Cultural

Resources in LaConnor, Washington.

Educational outreach, which fulfills Council mandates under Section 202(a)(5) 

and (7) of NHPA, remained a dynamic component of our mission during 1998 and 1999. The

education program is linked closely to technical assistance and program review activities and instructs

Federal, State, local, and tribal officials, applicants for Federal assistance, and contractors in the

requirements of Federal historic preservation law and Section 106 review. The education program is a

critical means of program improvement and preservation assistance. 
NATIVE AMERICAN OUTREACH

The 1992 amendments to NHPA introduced major

new provisions that recognized historic properties of

religious and cultural significance to Indian tribes

and Native Hawaiians; provided formal means for

Indian tribes to become full partners in the national

program as Tribal Historic Preservation Officers;

and required Federal agencies to consult with tribes

and Native Hawaiian organizations in carrying out

their Section 106 responsibilities. Our new regulations acknowledge these roles and clarify Federal

agency requirements for consultation.

These legislative and regulatory changes followed passage of the Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act of 1990, increasing the visibility of

Native Americans in Federal cultural resource matters

and raising awareness of Federal agencies regarding

Native American concerns. Although Native

Americans have participated in the Section 106 review

process for many years, the status accorded to tribes

and Native Hawaiian organizations in the NHPA

amendments dramatically increased the number of

projects with Native American issues under our review.

Our participation in consultations involving Native

American issues during this reporting period demonstrated the need for better communication among all

participants: tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations,

SHPOs, and Federal agencies, including the Council.

The Council saw a need for greater involvement of

Native Americans in Federal projects and programs

that affected historic properties’ religious or cultural

significance. Our new Native American Program,

coordinated by a senior staff member, was established to address these needs by providing outreach,

developing policies and guidance that further the

purposes of NHPA and our regulations, and offering

assistance with Native American consultation to all

participants in the Section 106 process. 

The first step in improving communication and developing relationships with Indian tribes and Native

Hawaiian organizations was to open a meaningful dialogue about issues of concern, and the Council took a

step in this direction at the business meetings in Santa

Fe, New Mexico, and Honolulu, Hawaii. Council

members and staff spent a day with the Governor, the

Tribal Council, and staff at the Pueblo of Jemez, near

Albuquerque, in November 1998. The tribal staff

shared information about the pueblo’s state-of-the-art

cultural resource management program as a background for a general discussion of better ways to

involve Indian tribes in Federal agency project planning.

In February 1999, members met with Native Hawaiian

representatives to learn about their culture and practices

and how the Army worked with a Native Hawaiian

community in activities scheduled at a firing range on

Oahu. The Council also took the opportunity to explore

concerns about and improvements to Federal agency

consultation. Many of these ideas were subsequently

integrated into policy and guidance initiatives.

With the new regulations in place, the program’s

focus has shifted to outreach to Indian tribes and

Native Hawaiian organizations concerning revisions

to the Section 106 review process. The Council held

a briefing session for Native Hawaiian organizations

in Honolulu, Hawaii, and tribal sessions in

Albuquerque, New Mexico; St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Seattle, Washington. Additionally, we met with the

Executive Board of the United South and Eastern

Tribes at the Oneida reservation in New York. 

At the same time, the Council launched a policy initiative to address issues such as our government-togovernment relationship with Indian tribes; the

recognition of tribal sovereignty; tribal consultation;

and respect for religious and cultural values.

INTERNATIONAL TRAINING

THROUGH ICCROM

In 1998 and 1999, the Council continued to promote

international training opportunities through involvement with the International Centre for the Study and

the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Properties

(ICCROM), an autonomous, intergovernmental

Educating the Public

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 54 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Through an Interagency Agreement with NPS, the Council provides

training for park managers and staff involved with Section 106 

compliance. Here attendees participate in a case study exercise 

at Ft. Baker in San Francisco. 
Educating the Public

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 55 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

organization charged with addressing the scientific and

technical problems of conservation. Founded by

UNESCO in 1959, ICCROM is headquartered in

Rome. As defined by its statutes, ICCROM concentrates on five principal areas: documentation, research,

recommendations, training, and promotion of awareness. Each year a jury of Council members chooses and

recommends qualified American preservationists to

participate during the reporting period. As defined by

NHPA, the Council’s role is advisory only; final decisions rest with ICCROM. Additional information

about ICCROM and the Council is available at our

Web site (www.achp.gov/iccrom.html).

COUNCIL WEB SITE

Over the past two years, the Council has taken advantage of Internet technology to provide educational

opportunities for Section 106 users. The Council Web

site, www.achp.gov, debuted in Fiscal Year 1996 with

the objective of providing one-stop shopping for anyone wishing to learn about the historic preservation

program established by NHPA. In addition to contact

information for all State and Federal agency officials

responsible for historic preservation under NHPA, the

Web site contains material about pertinent preservation policies and programs and provides direct links to

other useful Government agencies and organizations.

The inventory of Council publications is available for

downloading, including materials targeted to local

governments, applicants for Federal assistance, Native

Americans, attorneys, and the public. 1998-1999 additions include a “Users Guide to Section 106,” presented in both Web and print-friendly versions, that spells

out the process in detail, and an electronic gazette of

current Section 106 cases that is regularly updated.

The potential of the Web site to educate the public was

best illustrated through the outreach initiative for the

Council’s revised regulations. With www.achp.gov as

a base, Section 106 users were able to track the regulations through the intricacies of the Government

review process, from initial promulgation in the

Federal Register through the lengthy period of interagency scrutiny under the aegis of the Office of

Management and Budget. Once the regulations were

published in final, users were able to download the

full text in its official format and link to a series of new

Council fact sheets that summarized the new procedures, outlined major changes to the Section 106

review process, and answered frequently asked 

questions about the transition from the old regulations

to the new. An interactive flow chart highlighted key

decision points in the revised review process, while

discrete e-mail accounts handled regulations-specific

inquiries and enabled online registration for a nationwide series of transitional briefings. The Web material

was supplemented by targeted mailings, so that individuals without Internet access could have the printed

materials, and a staffed “Regulations Hotline” was set

up to answer specific questions. 

In Fiscal Year 1998, the Council brought maintenance

and development of its Web site under its direct control. Plans for Fiscal Year 2000 include redesigning the

site to make it even more user-friendly.

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

In an effort to maximize the Council’s limited resources

and continue to meet statutory obligations, in 1995 we

moved one of our principal tools for outreach, our

annual report to the President and Congress, to a biennial schedule. This has facilitated more in-depth analysis of individual initiatives with a greater emphasis on

outcomes and emerging themes. In 1997 we published

Report 1996-1997 in two formats, as a conventional

printed publication and as an electronic document

available at the Council’s Web site. 

This new approach to annual reporting does more

than simply reduce production and distribution costs,

though those savings are substantial. It enables global

access to this important source of preservation information and permits readers to tailor its contents to

their individual requirements. For example, persons

familiar with the Council and the Section 106 consultation process might find sufficient information about

recent agency achievements between the covers of the

printed report. Individuals less experienced with the

Council, on the other hand, can visit the links 

embedded in the online report for more information.

Experience shows that educating Federal agency officials and others saves significant time in processing

Section 106 undertakings. It also improves consultation and results in better, more thoughtful planning

and consideration of historic values. Through our

training and publications, the Council endeavors to

bring its message to the broadest possible spectrum of

Section 106 users.
CONCLUSION

Section VI

General Post Office, Washington, DC
Conclusion

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 57 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

Vigorous legislative and policy support ensured

that national historic preservation concerns were

considered by Congress; sustained outreach 

to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations brought two traditionally under-served communities under the Section 106 umbrella; and an

increasingly sophisticated Web site acquainted an

ever-growing audience with the Council’s range 

of activities.

The Council’s six-year regulatory reform initiative

came to fruition during this reporting period.

Implementation of new Section 106 regulations on

June 17, 1999, formalized a more efficient and

responsive approach to the protection of historic

properties just in time for the new millennium.

Giving greater deference to Federal agency-SHPO

decision making and removing the Council from

routine Section 106 reviews, the regulations have

important implications for historic preservation in

the 21st century. Not only do they enable us to

focus on situations where our expertise and national perspective can enhance consideration of historic preservation issues but also shift our emphasis from individual cases to assessments of the

overall quality of a SHPO/THPO’s or Federal

agency’s performance. 

Improving Federal stewardship of historic properties

was a major focus in Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999.

Using business meetings in Washington, DC; Miami,

Florida; Alexandria, Virginia; Santa Fe, New Mexico;

and Honolulu, Hawaii, to explore preservation issues

associated with a variety of agencies, including the

Department of Energy, the Army, the Navy, and the

General Services Administration, members looked for

ways the Federal Government could do a better job in

the future. This focus led to the development of a special report to the President and Congress on that topic

in conjunction with the White House Millennium

Program. Scheduled for release in FY2000, the

Council’s Federal stewardship report will assess the

challenges confronting Federal agencies that administer historic properties and make recommendations as

to how their historic preservation efforts can be

strengthened for generations of Americans. 

With an active legislative agenda, improved communications, more effective constituent outreach, and

new regulations, the Council enters the millennium

ready to take advantage of new opportunities to protect and enhance the Nation’s historic resources.

These and the other initiatives discussed in Report

1998-1999 make tangible its founding principle: to

provide preservation leadership at the national level.

As the foregoing discussion makes clear, the past two fiscal years were signal

ones for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In 1998 and 1999, our internal 

reorganization and streamlining initiatives undertaken in previous years paid off handsomely.
Appendices

Tariff Building, Washington, DC
Appendices

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 59 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

APPENDIX A

Council Mission Statement

The mission of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is to promote the protection and enhancement

of our Nation’s historic resources. To fulfill this mission, the Council:

• Advances Federal historic preservation planning by ensuring that Federal agency policies and operating 

procedures adequately consider historic preservation laws and policies.

• Oversees the Section 106 review process to ensure that it functions smoothly and effectively for the nearly

100,000 Federal actions requiring review annually.

• Serves as mediator in more than 1,000 individual cases annually, between project sponsors and local 

preservation interests to protect important historic resources from unnecessary harm.

• Develops legally binding agreements in those cases among Federal, State, and tribal officials and other affected

parties to clearly set forth the treatment of historic properties.

• Provides essential training, guidance, and public information to make the Section 106 review process operate

efficiently and with full opportunity for citizen involvement.

• Recommends administrative and legislative improvement for protecting the Nation’s heritage with due 

recognition of other national needs and priorities.
Appendices

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 60 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

APPENDIX B

Appropriations Statement

FY 1998 FY 1999

(final) (final)

Personnel compensation 1,750,000 1,792,000

Personnel benefits 404,000 416,000

Travel and transportation 40,000 40,000

Rent, communications, miscellaneous charges 270,000 286,000

Printing 41,000 41,000

Other services 170,000 170,000

Supplies 5,000 5,000

Equipment 65,000 50,000

Total $2,745,000 $2,800,000
Appendices

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 61 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

APPENDIX C

Council Members, 1998-1999

Chairman

Cathryn Buford Slater (Arkansas)

Vice Chairman

Stephen B. Hand (Louisiana)

Expert Members

James K. Huhta, Ph.D. (Tennessee)

Bruce D. Judd, FAIA (California)

Arva Moore Parks McCabe (Florida)

Parker Westbrook (Arkansas)

Citizen Members

Arthur Q. Davis, FAIA (Louisiana)

Eugene A. Ludwig (Washington, DC)

Margaret Robson (California)*

Native American/Native Hawaiian Member

Raynard C. Soon (Hawaii)

Governor

Honorable Angus S. King, Jr. (Maine)

Mayor

Honorable Emanuel Cleaver, II 

(Kansas City, Missouri)*

Federal Agency Members

Architect of the Capitol

Secretary of Agriculture

Secretary of the Interior

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

Administrator, General Services Administration

Secretary of Transportation

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

National Historic Preservation 

Organization Members

Chairman, National Trust for Historic Preservation

President, National Conference of State 

Historic Preservation Officers

*term expired during reporting period
Appendices

A DVISORY C OUNCIL ON 62 H ISTORIC P RESERVATION

APPENDIX D

Council Professional Staff

(September 30, 1999)

Office of the Executive Director

John M. Fowler, executive director

Ronald D. Anzalone, assistant to the 

executive director

Charlotte M. Fesko, administrative assistant 

and member services

Office of General Counsel

Javier Marqués, assistant general counsel

Native American Program

Valerie Hauser, Native American 

program coordinator

Communications and 

Intergovernmental Relations

Sharon S. Conway, government relations 

and communications coordinator

Elizabeth Moss, publications manager

Stephanie A. Woronowicz, writer-editor and 

Web manager

Education and Training

Shauna J. Holmes, education coordinator

Judith E. Rodenstein, training specialist 

Information Technology Center

B. Marie Brown, director

Brenda K. Bolden, office systems assistant

Frances Gilmore, secretary

LaShavio Johnson, computer assistant

Administration

Carol J. McLain, administrative officer

Paulette Washington, office automation 

Office of Planning and Review

Don L. Klima, director

David E. Berwick, Army affairs coordinator

Martha Catlin, historic preservation specialist

Ralston Cox, historic preservation specialist

Jane Crisler, historic preservation specialist

Laura Henley Dean, historic preservation specialist

Charlene Dwin-Vaughn, program analyst

Connie Fox, clerk-typist

Carol Gleichman, historic preservation specialist

Michelle Heller, Army National Guard liaison

Cornelia (Lee) Keatinge, program analyst

Nancy Kochan, office administrator

Tom M. McCulloch, historic preservation specialist

MaryAnn Naber, historic preservation specialist

Marjorie Nowick, historic preservation specialist

Druscilla J. Null, program analyst

Rebecca W. Powell, administrative assistant

Alan Stanfill, program analyst

Karen Theimer, historic preservation specialist 

Raymond Wallace, historic preservation technician

Executive Committee

Robert D. Bush, special assistant to the Chairman
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809

Washington, DC 20004

(202) 606-8503

www.achp.gov