As you know, yesterday I accepted Governor Christineger’s
appointment as East Utalina’s State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). I am honored and humbled by this appointment,
and look forward to working with all of you.
In accepting the Governor’s appointment, I also accepted –
and strongly support – his direction to make a 25% cut in the cost of SHPO
operations and to simplify administrative processes. The major purpose of this memorandum is to
explain how I intend to implement this direction.
By way of background, I believe strongly that the central
purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the East Utalina
Historic Resources Act (EUHRA) is to protect and advance the public interest
with respect to historic preservation. NHPA and EUHRA were not intended to place the
interests of historic preservation above all other interests, and the office of
SHPO, created and described in the statutes, is not intended to be an unfailing
advocate for historic preservation regardless of other interests. Nor, I believe, is it the purpose of the SHPO
to serve largely as an information repository, a collector of information, or a
bookkeeper.
The core responsibility of the SHPO, I believe, is to do
whatever is feasible to ensure that the public has every opportunity to
influence decision-making relating to the management of historic properties,
including the management of impacts on such properties. This is implicit in the language of the regulations
implementing Section 106 of NHPA, wherein the SHPO is said to “reflect the
interests of the State and its citizens in the preservation of their cultural heritage”
(36 CFR § 800.2(c)(1)(i)). No individual
or office can in fact reflect such a range of interests as those represented by
the State and all its citizens, so what we must do is to ensure that citizens
can readily participate in what we do, and to influence our decisions and those
of others. In many ways, NHPA and EUHRA
are intended to protect the interests of the public from the plans and projects
of government and those it assists or licenses.
This is the function I intend to emphasize.
Much of our staff time – and hence our budget – is given
over to (a) encouraging, receiving, reviewing and processing nominations to the
National and State Registers of Historic Places (carried out by the Office of
Registration) and (b) participation in federal project review under Section 106
of NHPA and Section 601 of EUHRA (carried
out by the Office of Consultation). The
following measures are designed to simplify these functions, substantially
achieving the 25% cost reduction ordered by the Governor while improving our
responsiveness to the public interest.
1.
Effective immediately, the Office of
Registration is abolished. Registration,
including listing properties on the State and National Registers, is a
recordkeeping function that we must downgrade.
a.
To the extent registration continues, it will be
carried out by the Office Librarian.
b.
SHPO sponsorship of surveys and nominations to
the State and National Registers will be wound down in an orderly manner; by
the end of this fiscal year, investment in such operations should approximate
zero.
c.
Nominations prepared by others will be received
and reviewed as time permits, with priority given to properties whose
registration relates in some demonstrable way to land-use planning, development
project review, and/or the receipt of grants to support preservation, with the
explicit recognition that neither NHPA nor EUHRA require placement on the
National or State Register to trigger the review of impacts on properties;
eligibility for either register is sufficient.
d.
Employees whose positions are terminated by this
action will receive priority consideration for jobs that become available
elsewhere in the office, and will be counseled regarding employment options in
other state agencies, local governments, with Indian tribes, and in the private
sector.
2.
The Chief, Office of Consultation will within
thirty (30) days deliver to me a plan of action to achieve the following
objectives:
a.
Finalize guidelines for all federal and state
agencies regarding initiation of NHPA Section 106 review in accordance with 36
CFR § 800.3, and for the conduct of review under 36 CFR §§ 800.4 and 800.5. These guidelines are to emphasize agency
outreach to the interested public, and ongoing consultation with interested
parties, so as to ensure that such parties are given every opportunity to
participate in and influence the project review process. The
guidelines should provide for monitoring by this office to promote agency
compliance, and for intervention by this office in response to public concerns.
b.
Simplify or eliminate routine review by this
office of agency determinations under 36
CFR §§ 800.4 and 800.5 and the equivalent sections of the EUHRA Section 601
procedures, provided the agency whose project is subject to review conducts
itself in accordance with our guidelines and there are no objections from the
public, local governments, or Indian tribes.
This office should concur in determinations that no historic properties
are affected by a project, or that there will be no adverse effect, provided the
responsible agency demonstrates that it has followed our guidelines and has the
substantial agreement of Indian tribes, local governments, property owners,
historic preservation interests, and other consulting parties.
c.
Establish that it is the role of this office to
(1) promote responsible, thoughtful attention by federal and state agencies to
the effects of their actions on the cultural environment, including but not
limited to historic properties, and to (2) mediate and facilitate negotiation
among such agencies and other interested parties to resolve the adverse effects
of such actions under 36 CFR §§ 800.6, the equivalent provisions of the EUHRA
Section 601 procedures, and other pertinent laws, regulations, and executive
orders.
d.
Establish that this office will not invest substantial
staff time or budget in promoting review processes for their own sake, or in
promoting the preservation of properties in which Indian tribes, local governments,
historical, architectural, or archaeological interests, and the public, having
had a full opportunity to express interest, have not done so.
I realize that some of these directions fly in the face of
long-standing policies and procedures articulated by the National Park Service
(NPS), an important source of funding for our operations. NPS policies and procedures are not engraved
in stone, however, and I am hopeful that NPS will recognize that the time has
come to explore alternatives that may be more responsive both to the public
interest and to fiscal reality. I look
forward to vigorous discussion of this matter with NPS and my colleagues in the
National Conference of SHPOs.
Fred Noonan
State Historic Preservation Officer
2 comments:
Great take on SHPO standard operating procedures. One question, though: How did Fred Noonan land in his new gig?
He navigated to it, of course, with unerring accuracy.
Post a Comment