DVISORY COUNCIL ON A

1100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 809

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

(202) 606-8503/8505

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

and Congress

to the President

Report

1996-1997
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 1996

and 1997 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

Report to the President and Congress 1996-1997 is available at the

Council’s Web site at www.achp.gov/report96-97.html.
DVISORY COUNCIL ON A

1100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 809

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

(202) 606-8503/8505

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Report

1996-1997

to the President

and Congress
4 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Council Mission Statement

As part of its 1996 restructuring, the Council adopted the following mission statement:

The mission of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is to promote the protection and

enhancement of our Nations 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 in

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 Nations heritage

with due recognition of other national needs and priorities.

Financial Statement

 FY 1996 FY 1997

 (final) (final)

Appropriation: Income $ 2,497,000 $ 2,500,000

Expenditures from appropriated income:

Personnel compensation $1,636,000 $1,622,000

Personnel benefits $408,000 $403,000

Travel and transportation $40,000 $50,000

Rent, communications,

miscellaneous charges $254,000 $260,000

Printing $10,000 $10,000

Other services $136,000 $140,000

Supplies $10,000 $10,000

Equipment $3,000 $5,000

Total $ 2,497,000 $ 2,500,000
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 5

CONTENTS

Council Mission Statement.....................................................................................................................................4

Financial Statement ...............................................................................................................................................4

Chairman’s Message ............................................................................................................................................6

1996-1997 at a Glance..........................................................................................................................................8

Long-Range Goals and Six-Year Strategic Goals..................................................................................................10

Building a Better Council.....................................................................................................................................11

I. Policy Development and Program Coordination............................................................................................12

American Heritage Rivers.................................................................................................................................13

Executive Order 13006 .....................................................................................................................................13

Affordable Housing, Urban Redevelopment, and Historic Preservation..............................................................14

Archeology .......................................................................................................................................................14

Program and Operations Assessment................................................................................................................15

Council Views on the Status of Agency Preservation Programs.........................................................................16

II. Federal Agency Historic Preservation Program Improvement....................................................................18

Redevelopment and Housing Issues .................................................................................................................19

Disaster Assistance and Historic Preservation..................................................................................................19

Historic Military Properties .............................................................................................................................20

Improving Land and Resource Planning and Management ..............................................................................20

Transportation Planning and Enhancement.....................................................................................................21

III. Management of the Section 106 Review Process.........................................................................................22

Goals of the Section 106 Review Process .......................................................................................................23

Improving Section 106 Review ......................................................................................................................23

Project Reviews .............................................................................................................................................24

Related Section 106 Work .............................................................................................................................24

Noteworthy Section 106 Cases, 1996-1997.....................................................................................................25

IV. Education, Training, and Public Awareness................................................................................................28

Education and Training.................................................................................................................................29

ICCROM.......................................................................................................................................................30

Publications and Information.........................................................................................................................30

Council Web Site...........................................................................................................................................31

Liaison With Preservation Partners................................................................................................................31

Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................................32

Council Members, 1996-1997...............................................................................................................................34

Council Professional Staff....................................................................................................................................35
6 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

Joseph Canny swears in Cathryn Buford Slater, Little

Rock, Arkansas, for a second term as Chairman of

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

CHAIRMANS

MESSAGE
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 7

I am pleased to present Report to the President and Congress 1996-1997,

which describes the Council’s continuing contributions to protecting and enhancing the Nation’s

cultural heritage. As the following text makes apparent, the past two years have been filled with

challenges; however, through the efforts of the full membership and the national historic

preservation community, the Council has emerged from this difficult period stronger than ever.

With a mission recast to support a proactive preservation agenda and authorization secured

through the year 2000, the Council approaches the new millennium better prepared to address an

issue currently confronting all Federal agencies: how to provide an increased level of services in

an era of financial austerity.

Report 1996-1997 is one example of how

 the Council proposes to respond to that

 question. Capitalizing on new informa-

 tion technology, this latest “annual” re-

 port is designed to provide a wider and

more diverse audience of individuals and organizations with information about the Council and its work

in a timely, cost-effective manner. With that in mind,

Report 1996-1997 is available in two formats: as a

conventional printed publication and as an electronic

document published at the Council’s Internet Web site

(www.achp.gov). Note that the printed and the

electronic reports are not the same; the former

represents a compressed version of the document

available on the Internet.

This approach does more than simply reduce the

Council’s production and distribution costs, though

the savings are substantial. It also enables a global

audience to access Report 1996-1997 and, moreover,

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, might determine the Internet version better

suited to their needs.

Not only does the electronic document afford the

same useful summary of Council activities as its

printed counterpart, it also provides a means to access

extensive supplementary materials delineating the

role of the Council and its partners in the national

historic preservation process, including the full text of

Council regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 800), and the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966. In this era of shrinking

resources and growing need, the Internet provides a

mechanism to provide Council constituents better,

faster service at minimum cost. This method of

communication will prove increasingly invaluable,

particularly as the Council moves toward implementation of its revised regulations.

On a personal note, I am delighted that President

Clinton has reappointed me to the chairmanship and

look forward to a second

term as productive as the

first.

We are engaged in

exciting work here at the

Council. In Report 1996-

1997, we invite you to

review our progress. First appointed to the Council

in 1993, Chairman Slater is also

the State Historic Preservation

Officer for Arkansas.
8 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

1996-1997

AT A GLANCE

As part of the Councils reorganization, former Deputy Executive

Director and General Counsel John M. Fowler, shown here with

Chairman Slater, was appointed Executive Director.
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 9

Building a more efficient and effective agency was the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation’s task for 1996 and 1997. Faced with potential elimination or at least

severe downsizing and a difficult reauthorization, the Council took the opportunity to scrutinize its

role and responsibilities within the National Historic Preservation Program. This agency-building

process is discussed in detail on page 3.

by agencies. A total of 1,731 Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), including Programmatic Agreements

(PAs), were executed, and some 1,450 individuals were

trained in Federal historic preservation procedure,

policy, and practice. Federal Historic Preservation

Case Law, 1966-1996: Thirty Years of the National

Historic Preservation Act, a compendium of cases

brought under NHPA, went to press, and the Council’s

Internet site, a key mechanism in the Council’s ongoing efforts to broaden its outreach to constituents, was

developed and launched.

This range of activities was pursued with an appointed membership of 20, a staff of 32, and an operating budget of approximately $2.5 million. It took

place under the leadership of Chairman Slater, who

was reappointed to the chairmanship by President

Clinton on August 14, 1997. Three new members participated in these endeavors: historic preservation expert Bruce D. Judd, FAIA, San Francisco, California; citizen member Arthur Q. Davis, FAIA, New

Orleans, Louisiana; and Native Hawaiian member

Raynard C. Soon, Honolulu, Hawaii. Biographical

information about these and other Council members

is available at the Council’s Web site (www.achp.gov/

members.html).

Responding to 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 are but a few of the activities the Council undertakes to meet its statutory obligations. Report 1996-1997 summarizes recent Council efforts

toward that end, noting major achievements in four

program areas: Policy Development; Federal Agency

Historic Preservation Program Improvement; Management of the Section 106 Review Process; and Education, Training, and Public Awareness. More information about these topics is available at the Council’s

Web site.

The resultant two-year planning effort,

coordinated with the Administration’s

National Performance Review and the

Council’s ongoing regulatory revisions,

culminated in policy level action to carry

the Council into the 21st century, most notably the

adoption of a six-year strategic plan, which was prepared to meet the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act. Through that exercise, the

Council developed the following Mission Statement:

“The mission of the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation is to promote the protection and enhancement of our Nation’s historic resources” (see

page iv). Highlights of the Council’s strategic plan

appear on page 2. The mission statement and an elaboration of the Council’s long-range and six-year strategic goals are available at the Council’s Web site

(www.achp.gov/mission.html).

That the Council’s revitalization took place over

the course of 1996 and 1997 was particularly appropriate given that October 15, 1996, was the 30th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act

(NHPA), the landmark law that set historic preservation as a national priority and established the Council

to advise the President and Congress on matters of

historic preservation. (The full text of NHPA is available at the Council’s Web site at www.achp.gov/

act.html.) Chairman Cathryn B. Slater traced the

agency’s evolution from a unit of the National Park

Service (NPS) to the present day in “The Advisory

Council at 30,” the Council’s contribution to A Model

Partnership: 30th Anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act, a collection of essays published by NPS to commemorate the event.

Against this immediate backdrop the Council’s

daily activities continued. In 1996 and 1997, 7,218

Federal undertakings were reviewed under Section

106, including 512 post-agreement plans submitted
10 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Long-Range Goals and Six-Year Strategic Goals

The Councils activities fall into four basic program areas: Policy and Program Coordination;

Federal Agency Program Management; Management of the Section 106 Review Process; and

Education, Training, and Public Awareness. The long-range and six-year strategic goals for each

program area appear below. Guiding principles and action items in each area are available at the

Councils Web site (www.achp.gov/mission.html).

Policy and Program Coordination

To encourage effective public policies that promote the protection, enhancement, and use of

historic properties and support and encourage historic preservation activities carried out by

Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector.

• Shape Executive and Congressional preservation policy through a formally recognized role in

policy formulation and program development.

Federal Agency Program Management

To foster the development of Federal agency programs that meet the requirements of Section 110

of the National Historic Preservation Act.

 Improve the effectiveness and consistency of the Federal preservation program through the

Councils recognized leadership and facilitation.

Management of the Section 106 Review Process

To promote outcomes in the Federal consideration of impacts to historic properties that advance

the purposes of the National Historic Preservation Act.

 Improve implementation of Section 106 and actively oversee its administration, while

maximizing the effectiveness of the Councils role in Section 106 case review.

 Enhance the capabilities of Section 106 participants to carry out their respective roles in the

Section 106 process.

Education, Training, and Public Awareness

To advise the public and their governmental representatives on the value of historic preservation

and the purposes, principles, and requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act.

 Establish effective outreach programs that showcase the roles of the Council and other members

of the national historic preservation partnership in achieving successful integration of

preservation with other community values and public interests.

 Train the primary participants in the Section 106 process and facilitate their transition to use of

the new regulations.

 Increase public access to information on historic preservation issues, opportunities, and

resources through a variety of mechanisms, including use of new technologies.
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 11

Building a Better Council

Assessing the Councils responsibilities, organizational structure, and various programs was the

first step toward building a better Council. Spearheaded by the Task Force on the Future of the Advisory

Council of Historic Preservation, appointed by Council Chairman Cathryn B. Slater in the summer of

1995, the group helped guide the Council through its critical 1996 oversight hearing. With

reauthorization achieved in November as part of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act

of 1996 (P.L. 104-333), the task force continued its work, recommending measures to ensure a strong

and viable Council whose work would continue into the 21st century.

Task Force Report

The task force report, submitted to the full membership at the end of Fiscal Year 1996, focused on

how the Councils operations and activities might be realigned to reflect the broad goals of NHPA. Chief

among its recommendations was the need for the Council to assert more aggressively its role as the

advisor to the President and Congress through informing elected officials about matters that affect

historic properties and assisting Federal agencies with embedding sound preservation practices within

their daily operations.

The task force also encouraged the Council to broaden its education and training programs, so that

Federal agencies might expand their capabilities to comply with NHPA and Indian tribes might assume

the enhanced responsibilities that the Councils revised regulations impose. (For more about the

regulations, see page 15.) More important for the purposes of this report was the task forces final

recommendation: to restructure the Council itself to meet the challenges of budget reductions and

government downsizing by utilizing available technology, reducing management-to-staff ratios, and

better coordinating the eastern and western project review programs.

The Task Force on the Future of the Council was chaired by historic preservation expert member

James K. Huhta, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Also serving on the task force were citizen member Margaret

Z. Robson, San Francisco, California; Judith Bittner, Anchorage, Alaska, president, National Conference

of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO); and Richard Moe, Washington, DC, president,

National Trust for Historic Preservation. Katherine Stevenson, Washington, DC, associate director for

cultural stewardship and partnerships, National Park Service, was an observer.

Restructuring the Council

A directive from Chairman Slater dated September 13, 1996, established an Executive Committee

to implement task force recommendations and advise the Chairman on policy matters. Chairman Slater

serves as ex-officio chair of the committee, which is supported by Special Assistant to the Chairman

Robert D. Bush. Current committee members include Council Vice Chairman Stephen B. Hand, New

Orleans, Louisiana; James Huhta; the Secretary of the Interior; the administrator of the General Services

Administration, the chairman of the National Trust for Historic Preservation; and the president of

NCSHPO.

Reorganization at the staff level involved the consolidation of the Eastern and Western Offices of

Project Review into a single Office of Planning and Review, headquartered in Washington, DC, and the

reassignment of senior staff to leadership positions on policy development and program improvement

initiatives. For example, the existing position of State liaison was expanded to include partnerships with

other preservation organizations and government relations, while a new position, Native Affairs

Coordinator, was created to provide effective liaison with Indian tribes and Native American groups. The

capstone of the reorganization effort was the appointment of John M. Fowler, former deputy executive

director and general counsel, as the Councils new executive director. A complete staff list appears on

page 27. Individual staff e-mail accounts may be accessed through the Councils Web site

(www.achp.gov/staff.html).
12 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

The Councils experience working with waterfront communities to

protect, preserve, and enhance historic resources proved invaluable to

the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. On the Mississippi River at

Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, the Council helped ensure that commercial harbor development took place without compromising cultural

resources such as Effigy Mounds National Monument, above.

I.

POLICY

DEVELOPMENT

AND PROGRAM

COORDINATION
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 13

Dominating the Council’s policy agenda during 1996

was active participation in the congressional oversight of NHPA and legislative examination of

the Council and its activities as reauthorization legislation was considered and eventually passed

as part of the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-333).

In the Conference Report accompanying the 1996 appropriations bill for the Department of

Interior and related agencies, the House and Senate Committees directed the Council to study

two issues and report on its findings: 1) that some activities conducted by the Council might

duplicate those conducted by other preservation agencies; and 2) the other Federal agencies and

departments that benefit from the expert advice of the Council should assist in covering the

Council’s costs through reimbursable agreements. Highlights of the Council’s response appear

in “Program and Operations Assessment” on page 7 and in “Council Views on the Status of

Agency Preservation Programs” on page 8.

The Council also weighed in in the areas of heritage rivers revitalization; Federal property

management; and affordable housing, urban redevelopment, and historic preservation.

Chairman Cathryn Slater, to oversee its

implementation.

Under the leadership of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Council helped develop and refine

the AHRI concept and, as the sole proponent of historic preservation in the initiative’s early stages, was

pivotal in ensuring that cultural heritage protection

and enhancement were central components. As the

program unfolds, the Council will provide technical

assistance, direct designated river communities and

other groups requesting assistance to sources of information, funding, and program support, and advise

public and private entities about historic preservation

needs and priorities. For more information about the

AHRI, access the American Heritage Rivers home

page through the Council’s Web site (www.achp.gov).

Executive Order 13006

A similar link between historic preservation with

economic revitalization was made manifest in 1996’s

Executive Order 13006. The direct result of a policy

recommendation made by the Council in concert with

the General Services Administration, the National

Trust for Historic Preservation, and others, “Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in Our

American Heritage Rivers

Historic preservation’s unique ability to

revitalize communities was acknowledged in the American Heritage Rivers Initiative (AHRI), a program designed to protect and restore America’s

great rivers. Announced by the President in his February 4, 1997, State of the Union message, the initiative supports locally led efforts to protect natural resources and the environment, spurring economic

growth while preserving America’s historic and cultural heritage. Executive Order 13061, signed on September 11, 1997, formally established the AHRI and

created an interagency committee, including Council

More information about the American Heritage Rivers Initiative is

available at the AHR home page: www.epa.gov/rivers.
14 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Nation’s Central Cities” directs Federal agencies to

look to the “historic centers of growth and commerce”

when siting offices in metropolitan areas. According

to E.O. 13006, historic properties located within historic districts should receive first priority; sites within

historic districts, second; and historic properties outside historic districts, third.

Two provisions of E.O. 13006 have particular

bearing on the Council’s work: Section 3, which specifically encourages the Federal agencies to seek Council assistance in taking steps to “reform, streamline,

and otherwise establish or maintain a presence in historic districts or to acquire historic properties to satisfy Federal space needs,” and Section 4, which

charges the Council and other agencies to “seek appropriate partnerships with States, local governments,

Indian tribes, and appropriate private organizations

with the goal of enhancing participation of these parties in the National Historic Preservation Program.”

The full text of E.O. 13006 is available at the Council’s

Web site (www.achp.gov/EO13006.html).

Affordable Housing, Urban Redevelopment,

and Historic Preservation

The critical relationship between housing that is

affordable to low- and moderate-income Americans

and historic preservation continued to generate Council

activity during the reporting period. As noted in Report 1994-1995, in June 1995, the Council issued a

policy statement, “Affordable Housing and Historic

Preservation,” that encouraged Federal and State agencies, local governments, housing providers, and the

preservation community to actively seek ways to reconcile national historic preservation goals with the special economic and social needs associated with affordable housing.

Recognizing that the provision of safe, decent,

and affordable housing was one of the Nation’s most

challenging and controversial issues, the policy statement advanced a new, flexible approach toward meshing historic values with housing requirements. It received broad dissemination in 1996-1997, and its fundamental soundness was affirmed at the Council’s

1997 spring business meeting in Washington, DC. The

Council’s policy statement and ten implementing principles are posted at the Council’s Web site

(www.achp.gov/afford.html).

Archeology

Archeology’s role in the National Historic Preservation Program received careful consideration during 1996-1997. As part of its regulatory reform process, the Council had occasion to examine a range of

issues from the perspectives of industry, State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Native Americans, and the professional community. These include

maximizing the public benefits of federally funded archeology, defining which archeological resources warrant a different level of consideration in the Federal

planning process, and controlling costs of the identification and recovery of archeological resources.

In Fiscal Year 1996, Council staff participated

in “Renewing Our National Archaeological Program,”

a conference cosponsored by the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), NPS, and several other professional organizations. SAA’s subsequent report, issued in FY 1997, included recommendations related

to the implementation of Sections 106 and 110 of

NHPA.

In concert with organizational participants in the

conference and other Section 106 users, the Council

is pursuing these recommendations to ensure the costeffective and consistent treatment of archeology in

Federal resource management and project implementation. The Council’s primary focus is improving the

efficient consideration of archeological resources in

revised Section 106 regulations.

Contractors rehabilitate an older building for use as affordable

housing in Macon, Georgia. (Photo courtesy of the National Trust for

Historic Preservation)
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 15

Program and Operations Assessment

In the language that accompanied the Councils 1996 appropriation, the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations requested the agency to answer specific questions about the

potential duplication of its activities by other members of the national historic preservation

partnership. The committees also recommended that the Council explore opportunities to offset

the budget cut through reimbursable agreements with Federal agency beneficiaries of the

Councils services, prompting an examination of the issues surrounding such activities.

In the subsequent report to Congress, the Council drew the following conclusions:

 There is little to no de facto duplication in the core activities of the Council and other

preservation agencies.

 Apparent overlaps between different agencies and their programs are a consequence of the

agencies related roles and placement in Government.

 Where the potential for duplication occasionally arises in secondary or peripheral activities,

such as the development of guidelines, training, or publications, the various preservation

agencies work in close cooperation and partnership to share efforts and work products and to

realize efficiencies based on their individual strengths and different program focus.

 Completion and adoption of new regulations governing the Section 106 review process,

currently underway, will further clarify the varying roles and responsibilities of the Council and

other key players in the historic preservation process.

 While some reimbursable or cost-sharing arrangements with other Federal agencies for the

Councils expert advice and assistance are both possible and appropriate, as evidenced by

past and present successes, there are currently substantial obstacles and constraints in both

the desirability of the Council seeking such reimbursement on a widespread basis and its

practical ability to do so.

 As an independent agency with regulatory and program oversight responsibilities, the Council

believes that any fee system or regular agency retainer for providing advice and assistance

would be ill-advised and raise questions of conflict of interest.

The complete discussion can be found at www.achp.gov/reportrequested.html.
16 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Council Views on the Status of Agency Preservation Programs

In questioning related to the Councils reauthorization, the House Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands asked for the Councils view on Federal agencies

progress in meeting their historic preservation program responsibilities under Section 110 of

the National Historic Preservation Act. The Council responded that to fully answer the question, it would need to systematically conduct a comprehensive review of all agencies. Limited

staff and budgetary resources had precluded the gathering of such information in the past; only

with additional time and resources could the question be addressed in detail.

Under these circumstances, the shortcomings of each agencys historic preservation efforts could be enumerated and remedial steps recommended to ensure full compliance with

Section 110. The amount of time individual agencies would require to achieve compliance

could also be assessed. Close consultation with the involved agencies would be required in

order for the Council to provide Congress with a realistic answer.

That said, the Council offered the subcommittee the following partial answer based on

insights accumulated over the years from working with agencies on their internal programs.

Information gained from daily contact with SHPOs and other participants in the National Historic Preservation Program and conclusions derived from the Section 106 review process were

also factored into the Councils response. Simply put:

No Federal agency has yet developed an internal historic preservation program

that meets all of the various requirements of Section 110 of NHPA, and no agency

has established such a program in consultation with the Secretary since the act

was amended in 1992. The agency that most closely meets that standard is probably the National Park Service for its operation and management of the individual units of the National Park System, although recent downsizing, reorganization, and decentralization of some NPS program activities, coupled with a growing list of maintenance, visitor services, and similar program priorities has, in our

opinion, affected the services ability to meet its historic preservation responsibilities.

A number of agencies have significant portions of effective Section 110 programs in place, and we have been actively working with several of them (at their

request) to improve deficiencies the agencies themselves have recognized. These

agencies include the Army, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, the Department of

Energy, the General Services Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Some agencies, most notably several of the major land and

property managers such as the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,

and the Corps of Engineers, quite naturally place a high priority on archeological

inventory and archeological resource protection on lands under their jurisdiction

or control. They also emphasize the concerns of Native Americans for identifying and protecting properties of traditional cultural and religious importance on

lands under their jurisdiction or control.

On the other hand, agencies with greater responsibility for facilities or complexes that contain important historic buildings and structures, such as the Air

Force, the Army, the Navy, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the

General Services Administration, and the Postal Service, typically focus on
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 17

developing operations and maintenance procedures for training and carrying out

repairs and rehabilitation work on the buildings they manage.

Since NHPA was amended in 1992, however, the progress that many agencies

were making toward establishing comprehensive and effective Section 110 programs has slowed or reversed. This can be attributed in part to reduced budgets,

downsizing, reduced availability of experienced staff who have been reassigned

elsewhere, and agency or program reorganization. At the same time, many agencies have had to focus their remaining expertise on other legislative mandates,

which, unlike Section 110, have statutory time frames and a potential threat of

legal actions.

A good example is the impact of the Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) on Federal land-managing agencies and the Bureau

of Indian Affairs. Since NAGPRA was passed in 1990, agencies have had to assign

more limited staff resources to developing the inventories of human remains,

cultural items, and objects of cultural patrimony held in Federal collections and

consulting with Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and others about

repatriation and related issues. As financial and personnel resources have grown

scarcer, increased conflicts between primary mission activities and historic preservation mandates have also been a factor in the ability of some agencies to

address Section 110 needs. Given the current and projected budgetary climate,

this is expected to continue.

The Council went on to suggest the necessary components for an in-depth study of agency

preservation programs and their success in addressing Section 110 program needs.
18 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

II.

FEDERAL AGENCY

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

PROGRAM

IMPROVEMENT

As part of their spring 1996 business meeting, Council members

visited Arlington National Cemetery, seen here from the vantage point

of its symbolic entrance.
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 19

Redevelopment and Housing Issues

I

n 1996-1997, the Council continued to work

cooperatively with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to coordinate the consideration of historic preservation issues in the administration of HUD

programs. In addition to emphasizing the affordable

housing and historic preservation policy statement,

the Council devoted considerable attention to problems associated with older homes. This included developing mechanisms for dealing with the abatement

of lead paint, a major health and safety issue. An agreement for an abatement program at the State level was

Program improvement activities of all kinds assume greater importance as Federal resources–both human and financial–dwindle. The Council’s emphasis on helping

Federal agencies develop and improve internal procedures to meet historic preservation responsibilities reflects this new reality. The relatively small investment in maintaining Council expertise and sharing it with Federal agencies results in significant savings to the Federal Government

and promotes the preservation of important historic properties.

During 1996 and 1997, the Council concentrated its program improvement efforts in five

areas: redevelopment and housing issues; disaster assistance and historic preservation; historic

military properties; improving land and resource management and planning; and transportation

enhancements.

concluded for Maryland; a local version was implemented for several medium-sized communities, including Manchester, Connecticut. These efforts will serve

as useful tests for applications on a broader scale.

Public housing modernization and revitalization

projects requiring Council attention increased as HUD

began to implement new operation and management

policies. Many of these facilities are now meeting the

50-year rule for National Register eligibility; the Council is working with HUD on programmatic approaches

to streamline the reviews of such projects.

Disaster Assistance and Historic Preservation

Helping the Federal Government respond to the

impact of natural disasters on historic properties continued as a Council policy direction. The Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) relies on

the Council for advice and assistance when historic

properties are threatened or damaged by hurricanes,

earthquakes, and floods, and recent Council-FEMA

work has focused on improving coordination among

the many agencies and organizations responsible for

disaster relief.

A statewide Programmatic Agreement executed

in 1996 served as the basis for a consistent approach

to Section 106 being pursued with FEMA and the

National Task Force on Emergency Response, a group

that brings together Federal, State, and local officials,

nongovernmental organizations, and citizens’ groups.

Individual State agreements are now being developed

Mill Knoll, a multi-unit affordable housing project in Tilton, New

Hampshire, combines rehabilitation and new construction. (Photo

courtesy New Hampshire State Historic Preservation Office)
20 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

ment of Cold War properties and consultation with

Native Americans; and helped write guidelines for the

identification and protection of historic military landscapes. The prototype PA for Army closures can be

found on the Council’s Web site (www.achp.gov/

armypa.html).

 Finally, late in FY 1997, the Army and the Council began to develop counterpart procedures to substitute for Council regulations. These new procedures,

pursued under a Memorandum of Understanding and

Interagency Agreement, will tailor the standard review process to the Army’s organizational structure

and internal decisionmaking, enabling the Army to

more effectively operate, maintain, and manage its

historic properties. The proposed counterpart procedures can be found on the Council’s Web site

(www.achp.gov/army-counterpartregs.html).

Improving Land and Resource Planning and

Management

The Council assisted several agencies with PAs

intended to improve the relationship between Section

110 resource planning and management and Section

106 consultation. (Section 110 of NHPA specifies the

obligations of Federal agencies with historic properties under their jurisdiction. For more information and

to access the new guidelines for Section 110 implementation, visit the Council’s Web site at

www.achp.gov/section110.html). Such efforts are being pursued with the Forest Service, for example. In

using the model PA; these establish a system in conjunction with State disaster plans for interagency coordination on historic preservation matters prior to

natural disasters. In 1997, specific agreements addressing post-disaster activities were developed for

Puerto Rico, Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.

The development of a nationwide approach to

interagency emergency response in the event of oil

and other hazardous material releases under the National Contingency Plan was concluded in 1997. The

National Response Team headed by the Coast Guard

and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began work with the Council in FY 1995 on a nationwide PA covering both coastal and inland areas. The

agreement built on lessons learned from past disasters such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Efforts will

now be directed at implementing the agreement nationally through cooperative efforts with the large

number of participating Federal agencies, including

the Coast Guard, EPA, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Defense (DoD), in addition to the States. The

PA can be found on the Council’s Web site

(www.achp.gov/NCP-PA-intro.html).

Historic Military Properties

With regard to military downsizing, work continued in such areas as the management of historic

Navy vessels and historic military residential quarters. In 1996, agreements were developed for several

major closures, including the Navy’s Charleston

(South Carolina) Naval Station. With the final round

of base closures and new DoD programs for streamlining and downsizing the military services, the Council

turned its attention to addressing programs such as

privatization, excessing of surplus property, including ships, and demolition of older or obsolete structures. Programmatic strategies to address these issues

with both the Navy and the Army were under development at the close of 1997.

Under an interagency agreement with the Army

executed in FY 1996, the Council also consulted on a

prototype PA for Army closures and developed accompanying guidance for SHPOs; drafted a prototype PA for installation management; disseminated

information about interim Army policies for the treatCouncil members toured historic military residential quarters at Ft.

Myer in Arlington, Virginia, as part of their business meeting in spring

1996.
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 21

addition, the 1995 National Park Service PA for operation of the National Park System has been subject

to consolidated review and a variety of related implementation activities (see the Council’s Web site at

www.achp.gov/nps.html).

These efforts attempted to respond to the many

and varied concerns of private industry and potential

applicants for various uses of Federal lands. At the

request of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of

America, the Council joined in an interagency effort

to simplify the processing of Federal permits required

for gas pipeline construction. Since agencies such as

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and

the Army Corps of Engineers have regulatory jurisdiction over pipeline construction, those agencies must

meet the requirements of both the National Environmental Policy Act and NHPA.

Transportation Planning and Enhancement

The final area emphasis in this program area involved working with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and State transportation departments

on highway projects, including enhancements authorized and funded though the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). A State-based

agreement developed for New Jersey was applied to

FERC Chairman Jim Hoecker signs an agreement for the modification

of the World War II Big Inch and Little Big Inch Pipelines as historic

preservation specialist Laura Henley Dean looks on. (Photo courtesy

of FERC)

South Carolina and Wisconsin; this approach delegates

responsibilities for much of the Section 106 process

from FHWA to the individual State highway departments and emphasizes a dispute resolution and monitoring role for FHWA and the Council. A nationwide

agreement for ISTEA enhancement projects was also

developed and published for comment as the fiscal

year closed. An agreement among FHWA, NCSHPO,

and the Council was completed in FY 1997 and is

available at the Council’s Web site (www.achp.gov/

fhwa-pa-memo.html).
22 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

III.

MANAGEMENT OF

THE SECTION 106

REVIEW PROCESS

In summer 1997, the Council launched intensive consultation with

Indian tribes in a series of meetings across the country, such as this one

in Washington, DC.
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 23

The Section 106 process is the fundamental Federal legal protection for

historic properties. Implemented by Council regulations as authorized by Section 211 of NHPA,

it directs Federal agencies to identify, evaluate, and consider in good faith the impacts of proposed actions on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of

Historic Places. Section 106 further requires agencies to consult with SHPOs and the Council to

resolve adverse impacts on historic properties with opportunity for input from local government,

Indian tribes, applicants for Federal assistance, and the general public.

Most Section 106 cases are resolved

satisfactorily through mutual

agreement on modifications responsive to unfolding historic preservation needs. Each year, a few

resist such resolution and are submitted to the Council membership for advisory comment. The Council’s

comments are forwarded to the head of the sponsoring Federal agency.

The Section 106 process 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 process represents an exemplary partnership

among the Federal Government and State, local, and

tribal governments. Roles for non-Federal interests

are clearly defined and permit these parties to determine themselves the extent of their involvement in particular cases. A detailed explanation of the Section

106 process is available at the Council’s Web site

(www.achp.gov/work106.html).

Goals of the Section 106 Review Process

The Council’s overall goal in the review of Section 106 cases is to encourage agencies to consider

and, where feasible, to adopt measures to preserve

historic properties that would otherwise be damaged

or destroyed, giving deference to the views of the community that values those properties. The Council does

not have the authority to unilaterally alter Federal

actions that will affect historic properties, nor can it

impose solutions on non-Federal parties. Council regulations, rather, emphasize consultation among the responsible Federal agency, SHPO, and the interested

public through Section 106 review.

During the 1996 and 1997 fiscal years, the Council placed high priority on the ongoing management

of the Section 106 process, which constitutes the major portion of its program activities. The role has three

aspects: general oversight leading to procedural improvement; resolution of disputes when they arise; and

project review, especially in cases involving controversy, public concern, or other complexities. The intensive effort to streamline its procedures has been

the Council’s primary effort to improve overall management of the review process in 1996 and 1997.

Improving Section 106 Review

The Section 106 process is at an important crossroads, as major changes forthcoming in the regulations will alter traditional roles and responsibilities.

As noted above, in response to the 1992 amendments

to NHPA and the Administration’s National Performance Review, in 1993 the Council commenced a comprehensive review of its regulations to identify changes

that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of

the process. Last amended in 1986, the regulations

were carefully scrutinized to identify ways to improve

the process and integrate new statutory charges. Focus groups of primary Section 106 users provided

input on the direction of regulation reform. A questionnaire on the Section 106 process distributed to

more than 1,200 Federal, State, and local agencies,

Indian tribes, organizations, and individuals elicited

additional information.

Led by the Regulations Task Force, created in

1993 to oversee the regulations process, the Council

membership adopted policies to guide reform and
24 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

approve specific changes to the regulations. In October 1994 it endorsed a draft of revised regulations for

publication in the Federal Register for public comment. Approximately 400 agencies, organizations, and

individuals commented on the proposal. While most

endorsed the Council’s intentions, many expressed

concerns about the actual content of the regulations.

As a result, the Council took a fresh look at its proposal.

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

Section 106 process. The task force prepared an informal discussion draft, circulated in July 1995 to all

previous commenters. Nearly 100 organizations and

individuals responded, most commending the Council on significant improvement to its previous draft.

Following interagency and Office of Management

and Budget review during the summer of 1996, a revised proposed regulation was published in the Federal Register for comment on September 13, 1996.

By the close of the formal commenting period in midDecember, some 230 individuals and organizations

had weighed in, the majority deeming the 1996 draft

a “great improvement” over its predecessors.

Comments received from Native Americans both

during and after the formal comment period, however,

indicated 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 on the 1996 draft and through

the tribal consultation initiative were incorporated into

the final draft regulation that went to the Office of

Management and Budget for interagency review on

November 22, 1997. Consultation on various issues

continued, but revised regulations are scheduled to be

in place in 1998.

Project Reviews

While regulatory revisions moved ahead, project

review continued under the current regulations. Numbers from 1996 and 1997 are roughly comparable to

those from 1994 and 1995; the number of new cases

submitted (5,776) decreased only slightly. Combined

with cases carried over from the previous year and

plans submitted for Council review, the overall

caseload stood at 7,210. All but 18 cases were resolved through consultation; the remainder were commented upon by panels of Council members or through

Chairman’s letters. A list of key Section 106 cases

from 1996-1997 appears on page 17.

Reviews necessitated by previously completed

cases numbered 512 during 1996-1997. These include

various mitigation proposals, data recovery plans, and

final designs and specifications that have been developed pursuant to MOAs and PAs. Often the formal

Section 106 review is completed with certain decisions related to the precise treatment of historic resources deferred until additional information is obtained. Council involvement in these activities depends

on the complexity and number of issues remaining to

be resolved under an executed agreement. For an overview of current and closed Section 106 cases, consult

the Council’s Web site (www.achp.gov/work106.html).

Related Section 106 Work

Providing technical assistance to agencies, responding to the public, and resolving problems that

occur within the consultation are also major activity

areas. Planning assistance is a particularly important

and time-consuming task, and this type of work continues to assume even greater importance. In many

respects, it remains the most important service the

Council can provide, since much of the planning for

historic resources by Federal agencies under the Section 106 review process draws upon services provided

by SHPOs. The Council has taken steps to improve

communication with SHPOs about specific Federal

programs and cross-cutting preservation issues to help

them do their jobs better. For a list of SHPOs, visit

the Council’s Web site (www.achp.gov/shpo.html).
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 25

Noteworthy Section 106 Cases, 1996-1997

• Arizona

Carlotta Mine Project, permit for open pit copper mine, Tonto National Forest (U.S. Forest

Service)

• California

Long Beach Naval Station demolition (U.S. Navy)

Mount Shasta ski area permit for construction and operation (U.S. Forest Service)

 Colorado

Boodle Mill and Forester Cemetery transfer, Central City (Bureau of Land Management)

 District of Columbia

Convention Center construction, Mt. Vernon Square (National Capital Planning Commission)

General Post Office Building transfer (U.S. Postal Service)

 Florida

Okeechobee Battlefield National Historic Landmark, subdivision development (U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers)

 Georgia

Broad River Pointe housing development, Atlanta (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

Eisenhower Parkway extension, Macon (Federal Highway Administration)

U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse expansion, Savannah (General Services Administration)

The Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places has determined that the upper

elevation and the Panther Meadows area of Mt. Shasta Trinity National Forest,

California, are eligible for inclusion in the Register. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Forest Service)
26 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

 Hawaii

Maluhia Hall demolition, Fort DeRussy, Honolulu (U.S. Army)

U.S.S. Missouri transfer, Honolulu (U.S. Navy)

 Maryland

Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement, Potomac River (Federal Highway Administration)

 Massachusetts

Greenbush Line commuter rail project, Hingham (Federal Transit Authority)

 Michigan

US-31 improvements, Petosky (Federal Highway Administration)

 Minnesota

Stillwater Lift Bridge demolition, St. Croix River (Federal Highway Administration)

 Missouri

Lambert St. Louis International Airport expansion (Federal Aviation Authority)

 New Mexico

El Rancho Electric Substation construction (Bureau of Indian Affairs and Rural Utility Service)

 Pennsylvania

Brandywine Battlefield National Historic Landmark, subdivision development, Chester

County (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

Philadelphia Naval Hospital closure and disposal (U.S. Navy)

 Puerto Rico

San Juan National Historic Site stuccoing of defensive walls (National Park Service)

Hawaiis Maluhia Hall, or haven of rest, is characterized by woodlouvered doors and decorative cut-out panels depicting island motifs.
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 27

 Tennessee

Elkmont Historic District demolition, Great Smoky Mountains National Park (National Park

Service)

Lauderdale Courts renovation, Memphis (Department of Housing and Urban Development)

 U.S. Virgin Islands

Water Island transfer, near St. Thomas (Office of Insular Affairs)

 Utah

Frank E. Moss Courthouse Annex construction, Salt Lake City (General Services

Administration)

 Virginia

Christiansburg Post Office disposal (U.S. Postal Service)

George Washington Parkway barrier project (National Park Service)

Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement, Potomac River (Federal Highway Administration)

 Washington

Cushman Hydroelectric Project licensing, Tacoma (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)

 West Virginia

Corridor H Highway construction (Federal Highway Administration)

 Wisconsin

Stillwater Lift Bridge removal, St. Croix River (Federal Highway Administration)

Water Works Dam removal, Baraboo (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)

 Wyoming

Old Faithful Snow Lodge at Yellowstone National Park, replacement (National Park Service)

Ranch A transfer (Fish and Wildlife Service)

The Tennessee SHPO has sought to work with NPS to address

adverse effects resulting from the termination of leaseholds at

Elkmont, a resort community located within the area subsequently

designated Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Most of the

structures resemble this one and were built between 1910 and

1925. (Photo courtesy of NPS)
28 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

IV.

EDUCATION,

TRAINING, AND

PUBLIC

AWARENESS

During 1996 and 1997, the Council trained some 1,450 individuals in

courses such as this one taught by historic preservation specialist Druscilla

Null.
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 29

General knowledge about Federal preservation laws, policies, and procedures is essential to the protection of historic properties. An understanding of NHPA and the processes it

establishes helps citizens make decisions that support preservation and enables them to communicate their

concerns about the treatment of their heritage to Federal officials.

The Council provides educational opportunities and information to all participants in the National Historic

Preservation Program. It also offers information about other aspects of the historic preservation program,

most notably those policies and activities of the Federal Government that affect historic preservation. In 1996-

1997, the preponderance of activities in this area fell into three categories: education and training; publications and information; and liaison with Federal agencies, SHPOs, and Section 106 participants.

Also in 1996, two versions of “Introduction to

Cultural Resource Management Laws and Regulations,” a new course for Federal Preservation Officers and cultural resource managers given in cooperation with NPS and NCSHPO, was offered to the Coast

Guard and DoD. In addition, with support from the

Air Force, the Council and UNR developed a new

executive briefing that was offered at Elmendorf Air

Force Base for the Alaska Cold War Working Group.

While the number of course offerings dropped slightly

in 1997 due to pending new regulations, the schedule

included 11 sessions of “Introduction to Federal

Projects and Historic Preservation Law,” four advanced seminars, four sessions of “Introduction to

Cultural Resource Management Laws and Regulations” for the Department of Defense, and two Executive Briefings for the Air Force and NASA. Sixtysix percent of trainees were Federal officials and 10

percent were State officials. Local and tribal officials

each represented four percent, with the remaining 16

percent drawn from the private sector.

During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, the education program focused on developing partnerships and

managing the expanding program. Consolidating cosponsorship of open-enrollment courses with UNR in

1997 enabled the Council to achieve administrative

efficiences and improve customer service. An ongoing joint initiative with NPS and NCSHPO to develop

and offer an introductory-level cultural resource management course for DoD personnel led to a new training partnership with the Naval School, Civil Engineer Corps Officers (CECOS) through which the

course is now offered. Four sessions of the course for

Education and Training

Educational outreach remained a dy-

 namic and expanding component of

 the Council’s mission during the re-

 porting period. Linked closely to the

 Council’s other technical assistance and

program review activities, the education program is

directed toward instructing Federal, State, local, and

tribal officials, applicants for Federal assistance, contractors, and the public in the requirements of Federal

historic preservation law and Section 106 review. Historic preservation education is a critical means of program improvement and preservation assistance. Experience has shown that educating Federal agency

officials and others saves significant time in processing Section 106 undertakings, improves consultation,

and results in better, more thoughtful planning and

consideration of historic values. For information on

the Council’s education program and courses, visit

the Council’s Web site (www.achp.gov/training.html).

In 1996-1997, approximately 1,450 Federal,

State, local, and tribal officials, contractors, and persons from the private sector attended Council training courses. The 1996 schedule featured 14 sessions

of “Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law,” cosponsored by the General Services

Administration Interagency Training Center; six sessions of “Advanced Seminar on Preparing Agreement

Documents Under Section 106 of NHPA,” cosponsored by the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR); and

two additional courses for the California Department

of Parks and Recreation and the National Capital Area

of the National Park Service.
30 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

DoD and Coast Guard personnel were offered through

CECOS in FY 1997, and four more sessions were

scheduled for FY 1998. Efforts are underway with

NPS to adapt the course for other Federal agencies.

ICCROM

As directed by NHPA, the Council promotes international training opportunities through its involvement with the International Centre for the Study and

the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), an autonomous, intergovernmental

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,

recommendation, training, and promotion of awareness. Each year, a jury of Council members chooses

and recommends qualified American preservationists

to participate in a selected ICCROM course held in

Rome; the jury recommended six candidates during

the reporting period. Final decisions rest with

ICCROM. Additional information about ICCROM

and the Council’s role is available at the Council’s

Web site (www.achp.gov/iccrom.html).

Publications and Information

Development and distribution of information elucidating the Council’s work and its function in the

National Historic Preservation Program is a critical

component of Council leadership. Both printed materials, such as formal reports mandated by Congress

or prepared as part of a special Council project or

initiative, as well as materials specifically designed

for electronic dissemination are included in this category. While fiscal years 1996 and 1997 saw production of two major Council publications, Report to

the President and Congress 1994-1995 and Federal

Historic Preservation Case Law, 1966-1996: Thirty

Years of NHPA, budget and staff reductions coupled

with a commitment to fully utilizing new technology

have encouraged the Council to redirect its efforts

toward the electronic medium.

Released in 1996, Report 1994-1995 illustrates

the Council’s new cost-conscious approach to its publications and communications. Spanning two fiscal

years, the report provides the maximum information

at minimal production costs. Its wire binding permits

easy reproduction should supplies run low, and its

comparatively few illustrations—down 75 percent

from 1993—exemplify a renewed commitment to content. The report also contains a compendium of selected Section 106 cases from the Council’s archives.

Drawn from across the country and organized by region, these 86 cases demonstrate the range of historic

preservation concerns across the country and underscore the Council’s national role in balancing protection of historic properties with necessary economic

development. Access “Section 106 in Review: Selected

Cases, 1986-1995” at the Council’s Web site

(www.achp.gov/cases1.html).

The second publication, Federal Historic Preservation Case Law, serves as the centerpiece of the

Council’s celebration of the 30th anniversary of

NHPA. Documenting three decades of Federal commitment to preserving, protecting and maintaining for

future generations the Nation’s vast panoply of cultural resources, the book extensively revises and expands one of the Council’s most enduring publications, Federal Historic Preservation Case Law: A

Special Report (1985).

The book begins with an introductory essay that

explains the current status of Federal historic preservation law, describes the provisions of major preservation authorities, and

discusses procedural issues in litigating preservation cases. It summarizes 135 court opinions

concerning historic properties and provides an

overview of Federal historic preservation legislation, beginning with the

Antiquities Act of 1906 to

put them in context. All

aspects of Federal Historic Preservation Case

Law, from research and

writing through production, were funded through the Council’s cooperative

agreement with the Army. The report can be ordered

through the Government Printing Office or accessed

at the Council’s Web site (www.achp.gov/rptlist.html).

The online document is fully searchable.

Federal Historic Preservation Case

Law, 1966-1996 includes a summary of 135 court opinions concerning historic properties.
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 31

primary partner in carrying out the Section 106 process, were a primary target. The Council has historically maintained close relations with NCSHPO and,

in its recent restructuring, created the position of external affairs coordinator to serve as principal contact for SHPOs seeking information, guidance, and

advice from the Council.

A similar arrangement with the regional offices

of the National Trust for Historic Preservation was

launched at the same time. A member of the Council,

the National Trust has a membership of more than

250,000 individuals and local preservation organizations. National Trust members are frequently involved

in historic preservation at the State and local levels.

The Council helps inform them of opportunities to

participate in the planning of Federal actions that may

impact historic properties in their communities.

Establishing Native Americans as full partners

in the Section 106 consultation process was another

focus of Council outreach. In restructuring, the position of Native American Affairs Coordinator was created to acknowledge the importance of Native American and tribal interests in the Council’s work. This

emphasis mirrors the provisions of the 1992 NHPA

amendments, which authorized tribal preservation programs and assured Native Americans a prominent role

in the Section 106 process. The new position is dedicated to providing effective liaison with Indian tribes

and Native American groups. A principal focus of

1997 work was related to Government-to-Government

consultation on the proposed revised regulations. As

regulations are finalized, the emphasis will shift toward providing essential training and guidance. A list

of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers is available

at the Council’s Web site (www.achp.gov/thpo.html).

Comments from the business community on the

Council’s proposed regulatory revisions identified a

new area for outreach. This group of Section 106 users typically encounters the review process through

seeking the Federal permits or assistance necessary

to carry out their activities. The Council responded to

this interest by hosting and participating in a variety

of meetings and conferences designed to establish ties

between the historic preservation community and industry. Information gained from these exchanges is

being incorporated into regulatory changes and the

development of new techniques to reach

business users.

Council Web Site

The Council’s commitment to broadening its outreach through the utilization of new technologies was

made tangible with the 1996 debut of the agency’s

Web site. Visitors enter the site through the Old Post

Office Building, the Council’s headquarters in Washington, DC, and proceed to a menu of eight options:

About the Council; The National Historic Preservation Program; Working with Section 106; State Historic Preservation Programs and Links; Federal Historic Preservation Programs and Links; Training and

Education; Council Library; and News. Submenus

guide users deeper into the site where they can locate

general information such as the Council’s role within

the National Historic Preservation Program, the dates

and locations of upcoming Council meetings, or descriptions of the Council’s course offerings. The Web

site also includes a complete staff list with links to

individual staff e-mail accounts, enabling constituents

to request information via their computers, and allowing staff to respond in a timely manner. The longterm objective of the Council’s Web site is to provide

“one-stop shopping” for anyone who wishes to learn

about the National Historic Preservation Program. The

Council’s site links to sites maintained by Federal

agencies, SHPOs, educational institutions, and preservation organizations, among others.

Liaison with Preservation Partners

Building better working relationships with

SHPOs and private citizens concerned about the preservation of their heritage was central to the Council’s

1996-1997 outreach endeavors. SHPOs, the Council’s

An emphasis on the use of new communications technology prompted

development of the Council Web site (www.achp.gov).
32 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

CONCLUSION

The Council is headquartered in Washington, DC, in the Old Post

Office, shown here before its rehabilitation in the late 1970s and early

1980s. The building, which became listed on the National Register of

Historic Places in 1973, will celebrate its 100th anniversary in 1999.

(Photo courtesy of GSA)
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 33

As the foregoing suggests, 1996 and 1997 were filled with challenges and opportunities for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Confronting possible elimination and certain downsizing in addition to a difficult congressional reauthorization

as the 1996 fiscal year opened, the agency drew upon its every available resource–human and

financial–to ensure its continued survival. Once reauthorization was achieved in early FY97, the

Council set about shoring up its position within the National Historic Preservation Program and

laying the foundation for continued accomplishment into the new millennium. A dynamic vision

for the future crystallized in a new, proactive mission statement and a six-year strategic plan that

set goals and objectives in the Council’s four major program areas.

Making manifest that vision, how

ever, particularly in a time of limited resources, demanded bold

action. Toward that end, the

Council took a close look at how

it conducted its business with an eye toward doing

more with less. Applying the streamlining principles

inherent in regulatory reform to its organizational

structure as a whole, the Council consolidated offices,

realigned management, and introduced a team approach toward problem solving and, as a result, was

able to make significant progress in spite of the uncertain economic climate. As 1997 drew to a close,

the Council could point to improved internal and external communications, stronger preservation partnerships, and broader, more effective constituent outreach.

The approaching millennium is rich with possibilities to protect and enhance the Nation’s historic

resources. The Council is poised to make them

reality.
34 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Council Members, 1996-1997

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)

 Barnabas McHenry (New York)*

 Parker Westbrook (Arkansas)

Citizen Members

 Arthur Q. Davis, FAIA (Louisiana)

 Margaret Zuehlke Robson (California)

Native American/Native Hawaiian Member

 William Tallbull (Montana) (deceased)

 Raynard C. Soon (Hawaii)

Governor

 Honorable Roy Romer (Colorado) (resigned)

Mayor

 Honorable Emanuel Cleaver, II (Kansas City, Missouri)

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

Chairman, National Trust for Historic Preservation

President, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

*term expired during reporting period
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 1996-1997 35

Council Professional Staff

(September 30, 1997)

Executive Office

 John M. Fowler, executive director

 Ronald D. Anzalone, assistant to the executive director

 Sharon S. Conway, external affairs coordinator

 Charlotte M. Fesko, administrative assistant and member services

 Shauna J. Holmes, education coordinator

 Adina Kanefield, assistant general counsel

 Carol J. McLain, acting administrative officer

 Elizabeth Moss, publications coordinator

 Claudia Nissley, Native American affairs coordinator

 Judith E. Rodenstein, training specialist

 Stephanie A. Woronowicz, writer-editor/Web manager

Executive Committee

 Robert D. Bush, special assistant to the Chairman

Information Technology Center

 B. Marie Brown, director

 Brenda K. Bolden, office systems assistant

 Frances Gilmore, secretary

 LaShavio Johnson, computer assistant

Office of Planning and Review

 Don L. Klima, director

 Martha C. Catlin, historic preservation specialist

 Ralston Cox, historic preservation specialist

 Jane Crisler, historic preservation specialist

 Laura Henley Dean, historic preservation specialist

 Valerie DeCarlo, cultural resource management liaison/

 special initiatives and projects manager

 Charlene Dwin-Vaughn, historic preservation specialist

 Carol Gleichman, historic preservation specialist

 Cornelia (Lee) Keatinge, historic preservation specialist

 Nancy Kochan, office administrator

 Tom M. McCulloch, historic preservation specialist

 MaryAnn Naber, historic preservation specialist

 Marjorie Nowick, historic preservation specialist

 Druscilla Null, historic preservation specialist

 Rebecca Rogers, historic preservation specialist

 Alan L. Stanfill, historic preservation specialist

 Raymond Wallace, historic preservation technician