Nellie Longsworth Reports on Proposed Section 106 Changes

One major issue raised in the discussion draft is the inventory and handling of consensus determinations of eligibility that are viewed as necessary to keep an undertaking on schedule. Consensus determinations take place during the inventory process of an undertaking where there is concurrence between the agency, SHPO/THPO, and sometimes the public and the Advisory Council that certain properties or sites in the project path appear to meet the criteria for listing on the NR. The process allows consideration of these properties in project planning and often a SHPO or THPO will determine which do meet the criteria of the NR. Few State offices, however, have the time or money to forward them to the Keeper. There are hundred of such properties recorded in State offices.

The proponents of change would simplify the Section 106 by removing the inventory requirement and exempting consideration of properties determined eligible by consensus. Thus would give the federal government license to bulldoze any structures or archaeological sites not already listed on the NR. The attack on the historic preservation review process is but one component of other proposed changes outside our field that includes environmental review (NEPA) and endangered species laws.

The lobbying group broke up into two teams and met with a number of the National Parks subcommittee staffers over two days. Most offices had received a number of faxes and emails about the hearing and were anxious to discuss the draft. The teams reviewed the Section 106 process, the 30-day requirement, the time-saving consensus determination of eligibility and how mitigation was handled. The whole process had come up so fast and happened during the dramatic Energy Bill debate on the floor, giving staffers little time to get the information they needed and wanted on our issue.

Five Witnesses Called

The hearing included five witnesses: Peter Blackman property owner; James Martin United South and Eastern Tribes; Michael Altschul, CTIA The Wireless Association; Emily Wadhams, National Trust; Jan Matthews, Cultural Resources National Park Service; and John Nau, Advisory Council. The hearing room was "standing room only" though few subcommittee members showed up. Ranking Subcommittee member Donna Christiansen, delegate from the Virgin Islands and a proponent of preservation, stated that there had to be evidence of widespread problems before proposing a legislative change to law.

John Nau gave excellent testimony in support of consensus eligibility and using administrative, not legislative, means to address Section 106. John Martin made a good presentation for the tribes. The Wireless industry "wants certainty" although their real problem is that they do not believe that the building of towers should be considered a federal undertaking. The National Park Service and National Trust further expressed concern about the draft document.

Back to SHA. The SHA one page testimony was excellent and widely distributed to the key staff. Many other organizations joined in submitting testimony including the 9/11 Coalition with a claim that they only way they could save the footprints of the Twin Towers was by having them declared eligible for the National Register.

What’s Next?

Where are we now? In spite of the fact that the hearing did not produce the result that the GOP hoped would happen, we believe they will carry on. The attack on historic preservation is part of a larger effort to make substantial inroads to reduce government review requirements in laws that include NHPA, NEPA and the Endangered Species Act

The subcommittee's concern with private property rights will target changes to owner objection and local government due process. The Section 106 issue was thrown off course by members stating and believing that "All the important properties are already listed on the National Register" and "If properties are determined eligible by consensus, the SHPO should nominate them for listing on the NR" We had answers for both!

The campaign on the issue is going local for the next few weeks. All groups are being encouraged to have constituents meet with their own member of the Resources Committee when he/she is back in the district. We will determine which members of SHA live in the swing Subcommittee members' districts and arm them with information from the SHPO that will highlight findings in the district and State over the last few years. Some might want to invite their Representative to a dig they can share, some have first-hand information on an exciting find and academics always having interesting facts at their fingertips. This is not just political, it is educating Congress on the knowledge we gain as a nation through archaeology about our past.

The SHA Lobbying Days are now scheduled for May 17 and June 17. Please check your calendars and let us know if you are willing and available. It is very satisfying to talk to Congress about the work that we love to do!!

Previous

• 1
• 2
• 3

Next