Message #377:
From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG
To:   "'Matthias Giessler'" 
Subject: Sec. 110 Guidelines Part 1
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 96 14:43:00 MST
Encoding: 448 TEXT

From: Anne Vawser

FAWhat is already known--specifically and generally--about the
historic properties for which  the agency is or will be
responsible.  The characteristics of historic properties that are
most important to know include location, frequency, qualities
that make them significant, vulnerability to impacts caused by
agency activities, ownership, and management considerations
(including appropriate maintenance and treatment to preserve the
historic property).  To enhance the quality and usefulness of
this part of the plan, agencies should consider compiling and
analyzing the results of their Section 106 compliance activities
and incorporating those results into the plan.
FAStrategies on how the agency can best obtain the needed
information in a timely and efficient manner and eventually
achieve a comprehensive inventory of its historic properties.
Examples of such strategies include setting priorities about
which kinds of properties will be inventoried first or which
locales will be field surveyed and documented.
FASpecial considerations given the nature of the agency's
mission and activities and the historic properties it manages or
may affect.

The state historic preservation office usually maintains the
state's official inventory of known cultural resources.  In
addition, these offices, by regulation, are charged with
developing statewide preservation plans that are approved by the
Secretary of the Interior.  To the extent practical, a federal
agency should confer with the appropriate state historic
preservation office regarding the agency's future plans and
approaches for inventorying, evaluating, and documenting of
historic properties.  In addition, the federal agency should
provide the appropriate state historic preservation offices with
copies of its inventory information unless circumstances dictate
otherwise.  The information that should not be shared as a matter
of course includes (1) information provided in confidence and 

(2) information regarding the location, ownership, or character
of a historic property, if sharing that information may cause a
significant invasion of privacy, risk harm to the historic
resource, or impede the use of a traditional religious site by
practitioners.  This latter situation is based on Section 304 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

Although having a complete inventory, evaluation, and
documentation of historic properties is highly desirable and an
important goal, most federal agencies will require a number of
years to complete this task.  Fortunately, unless it is making
decisions about specific historic properties, an agency
frequently does not need a 100% inventory--especially at the
earliest stages of program- or project-planning--to make the
decisions about the direction that the program or project should
take.  Predictive models or appropriate samples based on existing
knowledge may provide the needed data. 

The Secretary of the Interior has issued standards and guidelines
for identifying and evaluating historic properties (in The
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for
Archeology and Historic Preservation--38 Federal Register
44720-44726).  Identification, evaluation, and documentation of
historic properties must be conducted by professionally qualified
individuals.  Note also that identification of historic
properties is an ongoing process.  As time passes, events,
scholarly thinking, and public perception can change our
understanding of history and expand the range of properties
considered historically significant. Therefore, even when an area
has been completely surveyed for historic properties of all
types, it may require re-investigation if many years have passed
since the survey was completed.  Such follow-up studies should,
in most cases, be limited in scale and focused on filling gaps
left by prior studies. 

Listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

The National Register of Historic Places is the United States'
only automated, nationwide historic properties data base and the
only source of nationwide, comparative data on historic
properties.  Properties listed in the National Register must meet
established evaluation criteria (36 CFR Part 60).

An agency that controls relatively few historic properties might
find it reasonable and cost-effective to nominate them all to the
National Register.  An agency with a great many historic
properties will need to establish priorities for nominating them. 

For example, placement on the National Register might help
justify budgeting funds for preservation or management of a
historic property, so the agency might want to give priority to
nominating properties as a first step in upgrading their
maintenance and providing for their continued active service in
carrying out agency programs.  Further, National Register-level
documentation provides information on the property that will
assist the agency in its subsequent property management
decisions.  An agency that regularly transfers property out of
federal ownership might find it useful to give higher priority to
nominating properties to be transferred, at the expense of other
properties, in those cases where placement in the National
Register might encourage long-term preservation after it is no
longer under federal management.

Currently, the number and kinds of historic properties in the
National Register do not represent the numbers and kinds of
properties on public lands.  For example, less than 7 percent of
the historic properties listed in the National Register are
archaeological sites, although the percentage of significant
archaeological sites on public lands in relation to other
properties is much higher.  This under-representation could be
corrected if federal agencies nominated their most important
properties that represent the fullest range of the historic
property types.  This would enhance the representativeness of the
National Register of Historic Places and give many agencies a
stronger base from which to make determinations of eligibility on
similar kinds of historic properties.   Other agencies might take
another approach.  For example, many federal agencies manage only
a few kinds of historic properties.  These agencies might find
that it is most efficient to prepare a multiple property
nomination, which includes a cover document containing all of the
information that is common to the properties.  Individual
nominations, containing only property-specific information, can
be submitted any time after the cover document is approved. 

Multiple property cover documents can be extremely useful when an
agency is determining National Register eligibility of similar
historic properties.

National Register regulations that describe the nomination
process for federal agencies and for states are in 36 CFR Part
60.  In addition, the National Register has issued guidance on
listing historic properties.  The basic guidance used by the
review staff is in National Register Bulletin 16:  Guidelines for
Completing National Register Forms.  Additional guidance that
deals with specific kinds of historic properties is found in
other bulletins, which are listed in the back of Bulletin 16. 

The National Register of Historic Places has copies of nomination
forms and bulletins.  In addition, the forms and the most
commonly used bulletins, including Bulletin 16, can be downloaded
from the Internet.  

STANDARD 4:The agency manages and maintains its historic
properties in ways that preserve the properties' historic,
archaeological, architectural, or cultural values. (110.a.2.B)

Except for land- and property-managing agencies, most federal
agencies do not manage or maintain significant numbers of
historic properties.  Nearly all, however, are responsible for
one or more historic properties, which may minimally be buildings
or structures that house all or portions of an agency and are
under their ownership or control. 

Factors to consider in managing historic properties will vary
depending on the mission of the agency, its needs, and the money
available for preservation.  Consideration of the condition,
significance, integrity, and maintenance cost will weigh heavily
in determining management strategies and priorities.  Agencies
should establish a systematic approach for considering these
factors and setting a course of action for management and
maintenance of historic properties.  If an agency's approach is
thoughtfully developed and implemented, it should contribute to
the aggressive federal effort to preserve historic properties
while being cost-effective and compatible with the agency's

Generally, historic properties should be preserved on their
original sites.  This rule, of course, does not apply to
properties that are inherently mobile, such as ships and
airplanes.  Historic buildings and structures should be moved
only when there is no feasible alternative for preservation.  For
archaeological sites, preservation in place is the preferred
management approach.  In deciding whether to deviate from this
course, an agency should consider questions such as:  will
leaving the site in place preserve it or is more active
intervention needed? is there a compelling reason to excavate the
site for its research value? how does the cost and management
responsibility of preserving the site in place compare to the
cost and effort of excavating it? and does the archaeological
site have values beyond research that should be preserved or that
would be adversely affected by excavating the site?  Where an
agency has management responsibility for archaeological
artifacts, records, or remains related to a historic property but
no longer physically present within the property, these should be
cared for in accordance with the requirements in 36 CFR Part 79,
Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological

Each agency should consider creating a management inventory of
all known historic properties (whether or not they are listed in
or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places) under its jurisdiction or control and add records as more
properties are identified.  Each agency should also consider
maintaining records of the results of its identification,
evaluation, documentation, and nomination efforts.  In addition,
all agencies, especially those with large inventories, should
automate their inventories to the extent practical.  In
automating its inventory, an agency should use a data base format
that will permit the agency to share its information
electronically among federal, state, and local agencies. 

Additionally, the data base should be compatible with the more
common land mapping computer systems.  

Agencies should also set up a system to monitor the condition of
their historic properties and to identify potential threats to
that condition in advance of the threat occurring.  Agencies
should also consider establishing maintenance plans for their
historic buildings and structures and training maintenance
personnel in the use of such plans and in the appropriate
maintenance techniques and preservation treatments, which are
described in The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties and the
Preservation Briefs prepared by the National Park Service's
Heritage Preservation Services (formerly Preservation Assistance
Division).  For archaeological and other kinds of sites, agencies
should prepare preservation plans that address appropriate
monitoring techniques and treatments.

Agencies should train and educate their staff and those with whom
they interact about agency responsibilities to historic
properties and the public under the National Historic
Preservation Act, and other relevant laws including the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act.  (The Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation can be contacted about these and related
issues and provide advice and technical assistance.)

STANDARD 5:The agency considers historic properties in
addition to its own when planning activities that may affect
them. (110.a.2.C)

Federal agencies through their activities may affect historic
properties outside the boundaries of project or program areas
under their direct jurisdiction.  More specifically, Section
110(a)(2)(C) states that these properties will be given "full
consideration in planning."  Thus, all agencies should have
established mechanisms for ensuring that such properties receive
appropriate consideration in project planning and execution. 

While this commonly occurs within the framework of Section 106
compliance, agencies must also consider historic properties in
other agency planning activities.  Thus, irrespective of whether
Section 106 review is required, federal agencies have an
affirmative responsibility to consider their mission's impacts on
our nation's historic resources.

 In deciding how best to give full consideration to historic
properties in planning, the agency should take into account  (1)
the decision(s) being made, (2) the possible effects on the
historic properties, (3) the kinds of properties that might be
affected, (4) the availability and quality of existing
information, and (5) the agency's control or management authority
over those properties.

One way of integrating historic properties into planning is
ensuring that they are considered within the agency's National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and decision making.   

The NEPA environmental review process is a planning and decision
making process.  The end result is a decision about which course
of action (or no action) that the agency will take. When the
scope of the environmental study is limited, the agency may find
it practical and expedient to identify all the historic
properties that may be affected, address those effects
specifically, and determine the appropriate means by which to
mitigate those effects during the NEPA decision making process. 

In addition to incorporating consideration of historic properties
into earliest stages of project planning and decision making, the
agency will essentially complete its compliance with Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).  Such
coordination of Section 106 and NEPA compliance is encouraged.  

When the scope of the NEPA environmental study or proposed
project is large, the agency should also consider historic
properties, but at a scale or level that is comparable to that
for other resources included in the study and appropriate to the
level and kinds of decisions that the agency is making.  Large

FPF Meeting and Native American Consultation Training Information 
Now On-Line
The FPFORUM listserver promotes and facilitates communication and
information exchange among cultural resources professionals working 
with federal preservation programs.  FPFORUM is hosted by the Bureau 
of Land Management in conjunction with Federal Preservation Forum, an 
organization dedicated to fostering communication and information 
exchange among preservation professionals and improving federal 
preservation programs nationwide.

Messages posted to this list are considered informational and reflective
of the opinions or positions of the sender. Messages are not to be taken 
as official policy unless identified otherwise.