For some
years (far too many, in my opinion), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
has carried out what it represents as compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) under a “nationwide programmatic
agreement” (NPA) with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and
the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers – the latter
representing all 59 State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). Under the NPA, BLM executes “state protocols”
with each SHPO. These ostensibly lay out
how BLM and the SHPO will interact during BLM’s compliance with Section 106
(sic: the NPA), but they inevitably go farther, in fact structuring how BLM
approaches such matters as public involvement, tribal consultation, historic
property identification, effect determination, and resolving adverse effects on
historic properties.
I recently
received a draft revised protocol negotiated by BLM and the California SHPO;
although ostensibly provided to consulting parties for review, it was a very
complete document, some 75 single-spaced pages long, all worked out between BLM
and SHPO staff without any evidence that public views were solicited or
considered. I commented:
Having given the
proposed "new" protocol a sufficient (I think) review, I just want to
suggest to all concerned that it is absurd. In an attempt to
"streamline" the relatively straightforward processes laid out in the
NHPA Section 106 regulations, BLM has generated a massive document made up
mostly of meaningless abstractions and promises to do right, combined with
references to still other documents. If BLM were designing a mechanism
specifically to confuse readers and minimize the potential for anyone to participate
in its decision-making, it could hardly do better than to issue this protocol.
BLM adds insult to
injury by sharing the thing for review by interested parties only after it is
complete in "draft" form. This is not consultation; it is at best an
opportunity to comment on decisions already made.
Moreover, the draft
shows no evidence I can see of the slightest attention to correcting the
problems that tribes and others (myself included) have pointed out with the
existing protocol. Specifically, the stuff on identification of historic
properties remains deeply archaeo-biased, essentially taking the position that
what BLM must identify and address are those phenomena that archaeologists can
see and appreciate -- never mind places like landscapes important to tribes and
local residents or the habitats of culturally and historically important
animals and plants. Moreover, it continues to offer the easy out of
"avoidance" -- if a project is designed to "avoid" being
plopped down right on something that an archaeologist has identified, then no
further review is necessary. Thus BLM not only ignores project impacts on
historic places that don't happen to be places appreciated by archaeologists,
but also ignores visual, auditory, olfactory, and other not-directly-physical
impacts even on archaeological sites. These issues have been raised repeatedly
in comments on environmental documents prepared for BLM by the proponents of
projects like Genesis Solar and Ocotillo Wind, but BLM continues to stumble
along giving them no attention at all. Despite a promise to address indirect
and cumulative effects, this "find the arch sites and avoid them"
approach ignores these effects as well.
This idiotic,
irresponsible document ought to be rejected out of hand by all concerned. If
BLM has trouble complying with the 106 regulations (as it apparently does, but
might not if it actually tried to do so), then there may be ways to establish
better ways for it to do business, but this sad exercise in decanting rancid old
wine into a recycled bottle is not helpful.
To which BLM’s California State Archaeologist
replied:
If you could get Congress to overhaul the whole NHPA and section
106, I wouldn't argue with you but, alas, I have to work with what I have.
To which I
replied:
1. Substituting a vaguely
worded 75-page protocol, worked out bilaterally with the SHPO, for the multi-party
consultative process set forth in the Section 106 regulations;
2. Focusing on
archaeological survey as your means of identifying historic properties, thus
giving short shrift (at best) to cultural landscapes, the habitats of
culturally important plants and animals, and other historic places that
archaeologists are ill-equipped to identify;
3. Relying on physical
"avoidance" of archaeological sites as your means of impact
mitigation, thus ignoring (again) historic places that are not archaeological sites
AND ignoring impacts that are not directly physical AND ignoring indirect and
cumulative effects; and
4. Substituting providing
time-limited opportunities to comment on documents for actually consulting
people about their historic preservation-related concerns.
I've worked with NHPA
and the regulations for something over 45 years, and I've never encountered the
provisions that require you to operate in the above ways, so please, can you
point them out to me?
If the above is NOT what
you're saying, please advise me about what you ARE saying.
I’ve not received a response, and don’t much
expect one – at least not a meaningful one.
Not because the State Archaeologist is stupid, or trying to avoid
thinking (though either or both may be true), but because I think that she – in
common with a lot of others in agencies, SHPO offices, and even at the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) take it for granted that NHPA, or the
regulations, or some other writ-on-stone direction, actually does equate
Section 106 review with getting SHPO comments on the identification and
avoidance of physical impact on archaeological sites (or in relatively urban
contexts, old buildings).
So – acknowledging that nobody’s asked me, here’s
what I think BLM actually ought to do:
1.
Void the NPA. Transform those (possibly useful) elements of
it that deal with internal BLM organization into elements of the agency
historic preservation program required by Section 110(a)(2) of NHPA.
2.
Void all State
Protocols.
3.
Replace them – if necessary
– with simple agreements specifying how BLM will communicate and coordinate
with the SHPO when complying with 36 CFR §§ 800.3(c), 800.3(e), 800.3(f),
800.4, 800.5, and 800.6 and with Sections 110(a), 110(b), 110(d), 110(f),
110(k), and 111 of NHPA.
a.
These agreements should
be carefully crafted so as to avoid restricting or obscuring BLM’s
responsibilities for tribal consultation, consultation with other interested
parties, and effectively involving the public.
b.
Such agreements could,
I believe, eliminate SHPO review of specified BLM documents altogether (saving
time and expense for all concerned), provided agreed-upon standards were
met. Such standards should emphasize the
identification and resolution of direct and indirect impacts of all kinds, as
well as a project’s contributions to cumulative impacts, on all types of
historic properties, notably including cultural landscapes and other
traditional cultural properties, in consultation with tribes and other
interested parties.
c.
Such agreements could
also clarify how Section 106 review, or at least the SHPO’s participation in
it, would be coordinated with review under Section 102(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Such agreements ought actually serve to “streamline”
Section 106 review (a popular goal toward which BLM seems counterintuitively to
think it can advance by issuing 75-page compilations of platitudes) and could,
if carefully crafted and implemented, preserve the rights of American citizens
to participate in BLM’s piece of federal decision making.
4 comments:
The NHPA has been called the "Great American Archeologists Employment Act" for good reason. Archeologists really have monopolized the NHPA since at least 11593, taking over almost all of the implementation of the law for most of its' existence. That is the unfortunate fact.
Dr.King;
I think eliminating SHPO review of specified BLM documents is a bad idea at this point in time. The reason this issue is coming up is due to underfunding of SHPO.
Let's face it SHPO is being swamped with review letters and unable to keep up with the review process in a timely manner. The BLM wants its projects streamlined and have "physical proof of approval" of its projects by SHPO (versus not getting an answer at all from SHPO ever, which some people are perfectly fine with).
Many agencies produce SHPO letters full of what I would call "Fluffy Bunnies" that get approved by SHPO because everything looks great on paper! Streamlining projects is just not the way to go, instead a harsher and more detailed review process should be implemented by SHPO (which equates with increased funding for SHPO and increased number of SHPO reviewers).
Not to mention that the bulk of tribal reviews is being done by individuals who have themselves full time jobs which makes it hard for them to review projects in a "timely manner", especially when also swamped with projects to comment on.
Tom,
If the BLM followed your advice, what would the regional top cultural resource managers do for work every day? If they weren't making stuff up that all us CRMers have to try and decipher, they wouldn't have a job. More insidious BLM regs=par for the course.
Annonymous, I didn't say do away with SHPO review, but do away with BLM's SHPO protocols -- there being other ways to adjust SHPO review. But if SHPO review merely involves the care and feeding of fluffy bunnies (great term, by the way!), what good is it?
Post a Comment