The Bureau of Land Management Programmatic Agreement
Results of the Questionnaire
In June 2005, questionnaires were emailed to members of the NCSHPO BLM PA Task Force. The questions related to BLM commitments made within the nationwide PA. The aim of the questionnaire was to discern the views of the SHPOs on how well BLM is doing in meeting its obligations, whether or not changes are needed, and if so, whether modifications should be made to a state’s protocol or to the nationwide PA.
Nine of the ten SHPOs on the task force responded to the questionnaire. Alaska, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Utah responded; Wyoming did not. The Wyoming SHPO did call and respond that the existing PA disregards 36CFR800 and that the PA should not be considered counterpart regulations. Furthermore, the PA does not involve consulting parties or Native Americans sufficiently. One other state, Arizona, could have participated but did not.
1. Are provisions adequate for Native American consultation? Do they meet the requirements of the 2004 regulations?
SHPO responses varied, a few stated that consultation seemed adequate but most claimed that they did not know whether or not consultation was adequate and that the Advisory Council should be the judge of this. All reported that they were aware that the BLM consults with tribes. One SHPO suggested that the manual is adequate but probably not put into practice sufficiently. Two SHPOs suggested that the provisions for Native American consultation are inadequate.
2. Are provisions adequate for public participation in the process? Do they meet the requirement of the 2004 regulations?
The nationwide PA considers use of the NEPA process adequate for consultation. Although six SHPOs answered in the affirmative, there is concern that the use of the NEPA process for notification is not sufficient for identifying potential consulting parties under the revised regulations. Second, one state expressed concern that the public is not being made aware early enough in the planning process to comment on alternatives and are only being sought out to comment on treatment plans. One SHPO stated that the public participation process is not adequate and does not meet the provisions of the 2004 regulations. One SHPO was uncertain and another stated that this was an Advisory Council issue.
3. Is BLM doing more proactive work within your state in the area of: National Register nominations; development of historic contexts; analysis and synthesis of data; planning and protection prioritization; Section 110 surveys to identify properties; creative public education and interpretation; more efficient coordination?
The nationwide PA suggests that BLM, SHPO and Advisory Council staffs should have more time to pursue proactive work in relinquishing the day-to-day consultation work engaged with the BLM. Individual protocols were to address data synthesis, data sharing, preservation planning, cooperative stewardship, public education and community involvement. With the signing of the nationwide PA, BLM committed to greater effort in these proactive areas but it is clear from the responses in the questionnaire that SHPO expectations are not being met. Every SHPO reported some activity in at least one of these areas.
One might draw several conclusions from this:
4. From your perspective, is the BLM Preservation Board providing sufficient oversight to ensure consistency in the work produced by the field offices?
The nationwide PA established a BLM Preservation Board to advise and implement BLM’s policies and procedures. The Board was to make recommendations to the Director and State Directors concerning policies and procedures to ensure bureau-wide program consistency; training and certification of field offices; monitoring field offices historic preservation programs and responding to public inquiries. The Board was to confer regularly with individual SHPOs to identify recurrent problems or concerns and create opportunities to advance the purposes of the PA.
Eight SHPOs responded that they did not see the impact of the BLM Preservation Board and were unsure how the Board works. It is evident that policies regarding the national trail system and fuels management are coming from this body but there is no evidence that the Board’s role in oversight in maintaining consistency is taking place.
5. What is the quality of CRM investigations/reports from individual field offices?
The BLM is supposed to send SHPOs copies of forms and reports pertaining to historic properties in a format appropriate to the SHPO’s established recording systems. But what is the quality? SHPO responses ranged from good to average with five states reporting a great deal of variation within a state. One state reported that necessary background information and contexts were lacking in order to evaluate sites. Two states requested more proof reading. I suspect a great deal of variation exists on what is reported from state to state.
6. How helpful are the annual reports? Does the BLM state office provide lists of exempt activities, properties determined eligible and determinations of effect for each field office?
BLM is supposed to direct annual report contents via its manuals but I couldn’t find evidence that it exists. At least annually, the BLM send forms and reports and an annual report to SHPOs but they differ from state to state. One SHPO stated that it is getting better; another SHPO stated that the report was dominated by tallies used for national statistics; yet another stated that the annual report only summarizes what is sent and not what is excluded. One state receives information on reports that have not yet been prepared but will be sent the following fiscal year. Almost all (6) respondents suggested that the annual reporting could be better.
7. Is there a program to train BLM line officers and archaeologists new to the state in the particulars of the state’s protocol?
The nationwide PA calls for the training of BLM line managers and cultural heritage program personnel on the policies underlying and embodied in the PA and this is supposed to include active participation of individual SHPOs. Three SHPOs were unaware of any training on the PA taking place currently with the BLM in their states. One thought it was taking place. Four SHPOs reported BLM training occurred during 2004. One SHPO always provides part of the training for BLM personnel. One SHPO stated that training exists and says that it is working very well.
8. From your experience, does BLM field office staff understand the thresholds for involving the SHPO or the Advisory Council in consultation?
The BLM is supposed to consult with the Advisory Council on non-routine projects or interagency programs; undertakings directly and adversely affecting National Historic Landmarks and National Register eligible properties of national significance; highly controversial undertakings. Individual SHPOs may also have established thresholds of their own in their state protocols on when SHPO should be consulted. Five of the eight responded in the affirmative, that BLM field offices understand thresholds; three report that most of the time they do. One reports that no, they do not.
9. Are BLM field offices correctly applying categorically-excluded undertakings from review?
Under the nationwide PA, BLM has the ability to negotiate exempted categories of undertakings for which potential effects are foreseeable and likely to be minimal or not adverse (36CFR800.14(c)). A number of SHPOs and BLM state offices have categorical exemptions specific to their state as part of the state protocol. Five SHPOs responded that, yes, BLM seemed to be applying them correctly, two others weren’t sure and one stated “not always.”
10. Does BLM involve your office in land use planning and associated resource management decision making?
The nationwide PA directs BLM to seek the SHPO’s active participation in the BLM’s land use planning and associated resource management activities so that historic preservation considerations have a greater influence on large scale decisions and the cumulative effects of the more routine decisions before key BLM commitments have been made. Five SHPOs responded that they were asked to participate, three less frequently, and one reported being “notified” of major land use planning initiatives. Of the eight that were invited, two responded that SHPO workloads prevented them from participating in all the planning efforts.
11. Have you sought to terminate your state’s protocol or de-certify an individual BLM field office? What was the reason? What was the outcome?
The nationwide PA has provisions for de-certification of individual field offices based on recommendations made by the SHPO, the Council and/or the State Director’s Office when a field office is found not to have maintained the basis for its certification. It could be that the field office no longer has professional qualified staff or that it is not in conformance with the protocol or the office’s manager may request de-certification. There were seven “no” responses and one “yes”. One “no” answer claimed that this was a big issue, described why this should occur but did not elaborate on steps taken to decertify a field office. Another “no” stated that it had advised the BLM that a certain action be taken to protect the protocol and certification of a particular field office. Another “no” stated that one field office voluntarily de-certified itself when its archaeologist left. The “yes” called it “probation” and, with the acquiescence of the state offices involved, forced the field office to consult on every undertaking for two years until the office got the idea of how to do it right. Last, one state terminated the protocol and replaced it with a new one last year.
12. Are there any problems your state is having with BLM under the nationwide PA that is not covered in the above discussion and are there any solutions?
Four states answered “no.”
The others suggested: “better annual reports and consultation on plans” so that they would have a better idea of trends. Another: “add a formal agreement on grazing permits to the State Protocol.” Another commented that communication was cut down and wanted to “improve communication.” Two states requested the PA be amended to reference the 2004 regulations. One of these two stated that BLM was not considering cumulative effects on the landscape to such projects as wells and pipelines.
13. In conclusion, do you think the nationwide agreement is working? What kind of job is BLM as a whole doing in your state? Examples would be helpful.
Seven states responded that the nationwide PA is working for the most part although there were comments like these:
Two felt strongly that it was not working. One of the two who felt it was not working stated that “the PA/protocols went too far too fast… the “new” BLM has not produced significant alternative products.” This state wants a return to more consultation with the exception of exemptions and negative inventories, and more and earlier communication.
The other state that felt that the agreement was not working stated “I do not think it works well at all, since they do not acknowledge the 2004 regulations and their responsibilities under the Regs.” This state suggested that the nationwide agreement be amended to be more consistent with current ACHP regulations.
The responses to the questionnaire were useful in identifying common issues that could be addressed on several levels:
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
For corrections or comments on the website please contact Kristen Harbeson at harbeson@sso.org
