 |
Proposed
Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act
Can we afford to lose this historic
resource?
Click here
for larger image
1965 photo:Courtesy of Alabama Department of Public
Safety
Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March
Route in Alabama
The five-day march along this corridor holds exception significance
in the passing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Not listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, the Route could have been
destroyed as part of a highway improvement project. Fortunately,
the Section 106 process was intact at the time, and the process
led to the consideration of the Route as National Register eligible
and resulted in a revised highway design. Now the Route is part
of a National Park Service project.
Click
here for other
examples submitted by states.
Can we
afford to lose historic resources that we know are out there,
but have not been "officially" recognized?
This was a possibility in 2005. Essential elements of the 1966
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) were being questioned
in a "discussion
draft" bill which was circulated in the House of Representatives
Resources Subcommittee on National Parks in April 2005. The changes
were connected with the pending reauthorization of offshore oil
lease revenues to support the Historic Preservation
Fund (HPF). Click here for more
detailed information on the "discussion draft" bill.
Other historic resources that could have
been lost. . .
- While Henry VIII ruled England, Francis
I sat on the throne in France and Charles V governed most of
the rest of Europe, Hernado de Soto spent the winter in Florida.
The location of his 1539-1540 camp site, however, is not listed
on the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, if Section
4 of the "discussion draft" amendments to the National
Historic Preservation Act were enacted any federal agency could
destroy the site with impunity.
- Montana has identified the trail Lewis
and Clark used in 1806 while returning to report to President
Jefferson. Section 4 would give any federal agency complete
license to obliterate it. A similar fate could fall to the ruts
left by pioneers struggling west on the California-Oregon trail
through Nevada.
- Or, what about an earlier avenue to the
West, the Erie Canal? Section 4 would take any discussion of
adverse impacts to it caused by a federal project off the table.
- While walking on Waikiki Beach in Honolulu,
who has not admired the Royal Hawaiian Hotel? This landmark
is not listed on the National Register. Section 4 would allow
a federal agency to alter or demolish it without a second thought.
- South Dakotans are facing the possible
closure of their second largest employer, Ellsworth Air Force
Base. Section 4 would make remove any discussion of historic
preservation considerations in a Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) settlement.
- Civil War sites not on the National Register
exist all over the country from the fortifications in Beaufort,
South Carolina to a hospital in Montpelier, Vermont. They would
lose any consideration in federal project planning
- Would generations of Eli's want a voice
in federal plans to change the Yale University campus?
- What small city is the home of not one,
but two American chains? Wichita, Kansas. Travelers to there
can see the first Pizza Hut and the first Phillips 66 Station.
Should federal agencies have to think twice before demolishing
them?
- Homes of great 20th century American
figures, such as Alf Landon and Barry Goldwater, would lose
any protection if they were threatened by a federal project.
- The curiosity of a farm with not just
one round barn but two and a round farmhouse in Lake County,
Indiana, should merit a second look before federally-funded
demolition.
- How would Red Sox fans feel if their
federal tax dollars were to demolish Fenway Park without giving
them a voice in the decision?
- And countless
others. . . State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and
their staff have provided well-known historic resources in their
states that would lose their protection under Section 106 if
the discussion draft bill is enacted because these resources
are not listed in, or officially determined eligible for listing
in, the National Register of Historic Places. Click
here for examples
submitted by states.
Back to
Top
How would
changes to the National Historic Preservation Act affect you?
By amending the core historic preservation regulations -
Section 106 of the NHPA - your voice, your
participation in the federal government's decision-making process
is threatened. By law, you have a voice when federal actions may
impact resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in,
the National Register of Historic Places. Against
this backdrop, the "discussion draft" bill which proposed
changes to the NHPA was particularly troubling. If the NHPA was
amended to provide protection only for those resources listed
in the National Register, countless resources could have been
lost.
This question is best answered by Anthony
Gardner, an Executive Board Member of the Coalition of 9/11 Families,
in a April 18, 2005, letter to Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA),
the Chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee of the House of
Representatives:
"I can assure you that had it
not been for the requirement that 'eligible' properties be included
in evaluating the effects of those projects on historic resources,
the remains of the Twin Towers, most especially the physical
remains that delineate the twin tower footprints at bedrock
would have continued to be ignored and would have been completely
destroyed. . . . The existing Section 106 process is far from
perfect, but it has afforded the Coalition an opportunity to
be heard and have input into the design of Port Authority's
proposed facility. The original World Trade Center was not listed
on the National Register. . . . It was only the requirement
that "eligible" properties be identified that caused
the redevelopers of the World Trade Center site to consider
our concerns. If only properties listed on the National Register
had been considered during the Section 106 process, not only
the Coalition, but every citizen who believes that September
11 was a transcendently significant event in our nation's history
would have suffered irreparable harm."
What is Section
106?
Section 106 is a section of the National
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) that requires that federal
agencies take into account the effects that their projects may
have on historic resources.
Section 106 of the NHPA provides for successful
preservation outcomes while allowing for other goals to be reached.
At its most basic, Section 106 is a requirement that federal
agencies weigh what they do, fund, or permit against the effects
of those actions on historic properties. Congress did not create
Section 106 as a mandate to preserve, but rather as a decision-making
tool that prevents the federal government from destroying the
nation’s heritage without thinking first. This ensures
that private property owners and other affected parties are
not unduly harmed by federal activities without first having
an opportunity to have some say in the matter. It does not mean
that the project will not occur, just that some thought must
go into it. This is the limit of Section 106. It is also its
strength.
What is the National
Register of Historic Places?
The National Register of Historic Places
is the nation's official list of cultural resources worthy of
preservation. It is part of a national program to coordinate
and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate,
and protect our historic and archeological resources. Resources
listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects that are significant in American history,
architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture.
State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)
have worked for almost 40 years to identify and nominate to
the National Register of Historic Places significant buildings,
structures, objects, sites, and districts that tell the story
of our nation’s prehistory and history. However, only
a small percentage of our nation's cultural resources have been
listed on the National Register. Many significant resources,
already known and yet tobe discovered, are worthy of National
Register designation.
Back to
Top
The
"Discussion Draft" Bill
Essential elements of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) were being questioned in a "discussion
draft" bill which was circulated within the House of
Representatives Resources Subcommittee on National Parks in April
2005. The changes were connected with the pending reauthorization
of offshore oil lease revenues to support the HPF.
Summary of Sections from the "Discussion
Draft" Bill
Section 2
An amendment within the "discussion draft"
bill altered Section 101(a)(6)of the NHPA, which regards property
owner participation in the National Register of Historic Places
nomination process. Language changes to this provision would
have meant that if a property owner objected to listing in the
National Register, the National Register nomination process
would conclude. Existing law allows for nominations to be forwarded
to the Secretary of the Interior for a formal determination
of eligibility.
Section 3
The "discussion draft" bill also altered Section 101(c)(1)of
the NHPA by requiring certified local governments to ensure
that any local designation process fully provide for due process
- local governments that propose to use National Register eligibility
determinations to trigger local regulatory requirements would
be required to hold a separate hearing to provide for due process.
The concern for considering the rights of private property owners
in the National Register of Historic Places nomination process
emerged with a case in Los Angeles, California when a property
owner found his redevelopment proposal possibly subject to local
regulatory restrictions because the property was being nominated
to the National Register. Click here
for more information on this particular issue.
Section 4
Section 4 drastically altered the preservation protections found
in Section 106 of the NHPA. Section 4 shifted the responsibility
of documentation and analysis away from those seeking federal
funding for projects to the stewards of historic resources -
State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and other interested
parties. The proposed change significantly limited what is currently
given consideration under Section 106. In the draft bill, only
resources that are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places or those that have been formally determined eligible
for listing by the Secretary of the Interior would be considered
under Section 106. These limitations would have significantly
impacted tribal historic resources, most of which are not listed
or formally designated.
Limiting the scope of Section 106 by making
it applicable only to properties that are already listed in
the National Register or formally determined eligible for listing
by the Secretary of the Interior, would halt the consideration
of the effects that fedral projects may have on an overwhelming
majority of our nation’s historic resources.
Back to
Top
Latest
News
National preservation partners coordinated
a response to the "discusssion draft" bill. Click here
for a copy of the letter signed by NCSHPO, Preservation Action,
the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Society for
Historical Archaeology, the American Cultural Resources Association,
the American Institute of Architects, and the National Association
of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers which was delivered to
Representatives Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Donna Christensen (D-VI)
on April 18, 2005, opposing any amendments to the NHPA that would
substantially weaken the current law.
An oversight hearing on the proposed changes
to the NHPA was held on April 21, 2005 before the Subcommittee
on National Parks.. Six witnesses were called to testify:
- Mr. Peter F. Blackman, Property Owner,
Louisa Virginia
- Mr. James Martin, Executive Director,
United South and Eastern Tribes Inc.
- Mr. Michael Altschul, Senior Vice President
and General Counsel, CTIA The Wireless Association
- Ms. Emily Wadhams, Vice President for
Public Policy, National Trust for Historic Preservation
- Ms. Janet Snyder Matthews, Associate
Director for Cultural Resources, national Park Service
- Mr. John Nau, Chairman, Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation
Click here
to read the testimony of each witness (you will be directed to
the House of Representatives Resources Committee website and you
may select the witness whose testimony you wish to read).
On April 22, 2005, Jay D. Vogt, the President
of NCSHPO and the Director of the South Dakota Historical Society
submitted written testimony to the Subcommittee on National Parks.
Click here
to read the testimony.
Despite the above efforts to amend the NHPA,
Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) introduced H.R. 3446 on July
26, 2005. The bill simply extended the authorization of deposits
into the HPF until 2011 and did not include any of the substantive
changes to Section 106 that were recommended in the “discussion
draft” bill.
On July 26, 2006 the House of Representatives
Resources Committee approved H.R.5861, an amended bill that replaced
the earlier-introduced H.R. 3446. H.R. 5861 reauthorized deposits
into the HPF until 2015. National Parks Subcommittee Chairman,
Representative Stevan Pearce (R-NM), introduced H.R.5861 after
considerable engagement with the historic preservation community.
Back to
Top
|
|
