Members
Only
The Bureau of Land Management
Programmatic Agreement
Results of the Questionnaire
Introduction
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.
Summary
of Survey Responses
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.
- Is the new BLM manual 8120 on Native
American consultation adequate? Did the Advisory Council review
and approve this document? Are western SHPOs aware of this new
manual (dated December 2004)? I’m still waiting for a
response from the Council and it may be something to examine
in whatever amendments are proposed for the PA.
- Is there any way of including more
information to SHPOs in the annual report that would illuminate
how and when Native American consultation is occurring?
Back
to Top
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.
- Request the Advisory Council to comment
on the adequacy of BLM’s public notification procedures
in light of the new 2004 regulations. Should the BLM 8100 manual
be amended regarding public notification?
- We could recommend that BLM ask
SHPOs to provide suggestions on consulting parties early in
the process. Lists of potential consulting parties can be compiled
for particular areas or kinds of resources and be updated on
an annual basis.
Back
to Top
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.
- Two SHPOs reported activity in the
area of National Register nominations.
- Only two SHPOs report work on historic
contexts.
- Two SHPOs reported Section 110 survey
work.
- Two states report analysis and synthesis
of data utilizing the GIS archaeological databases to create
predictive modeling and proposed testing of research designs.
- Two states report that improvements
have been made in planning and protection prioritization.
- Every state save one reported some
form of creative public education and interpretation, be it
participation/hosting events in Archaeological Awareness Week
activities, museums, interpretation, Project Archaeology and
websites.
- Three states suggested that more
efficient coordination is partly due to the shared GIS archaeological
database, but coordination may vary between districts within
a given state. BLM has provided funding and real partnership
for the shared archaeological database in Colorado, Montana
Nevada and Oregon.
One might draw several conclusions from
this:
- The BLM has chosen to emphasize its
partnership with SHPOs on the shared archaeological database,
secondarily on public education, at the expense of other proactive
programs.
- It could be that advances are being
made in this area but they are not appearing in the annual report.
- We might think about recommending
that, given the limited funding received, that SHPOs participate
in discussions with BLM about where dollars should be spent.
After all, SHPOs do have preservation plans that set priorities
for each state.
Back
to Top
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.
- If the Preservation Board is not
performing the oversight function and the Advisory Council has
retreated from this role, then some body needs to move forward
to bring consistency to the local level. It could be recommended
that the SHPO and the BLM Preservation Officer for each state
perform this function in lieu of the Board.
- SHPOs need a report of Board activities.
If the Board isn’t serving a function, the task force
might consider requesting that it be disbanded in the amendments
to the PA to be considered.
Back
to Top
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.
- We could recommend a re-examination
of the policies surrounding determinations of eligibility by
the BLM to ensure contexts are present for evaluation and that
public and tribal input is adequate.
Back
to Top
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.
- SHPOs should share their annual reporting
requirements and pick out what information is really useful
to report. SHPOs can negotiate for changes with their State
BLM preservation officer independently under their State Protocol
Agreements.
- BLM needs to standardize annual reporting
formats to make it easier to interpret results. This should
be part of BLM’s Manual.
- SHPOs need to realize that they
can ask for anything to be reported – it isn’t entirely
a BLM decision on what is reported and can be above and beyond
what is required by BLM.
Back
to Top
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.
- Remind BLM that it must invite SHPOs
to participate in the training.
- We might recommend that BLM account
for the training status of personnel, both old and new, in the
annual report.
Back
to Top
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.
- Reinforce thresholds at annual training
or meetings.
- Reinforce to BLM that if SHPO is
to be involved, it should be earlier in the process, not later.
Back
to Top
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.”
- Would it help to have usage documented
in the annual report?
Back
to Top
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.
- Training of BLM line officers needs
to reinforce the necessity of inviting SHPO participation in
process.
Back
to Top
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.
Back
to Top
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.
Back
to Top
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:
- “We are concerned about proposed
changes in grazing regulations and they have not been discussed
with us. On the other hand, the BLM is doing a very commendable
job of public education and support for better data management…”
- “It is working…We believe
the language in the State Protocol is crucial to its success.
Overall, the BLM is handling Section 106 in a very efficient
manner. The data sharing component of the agreement/protocol
deserves major credit for this.”
- “The nationwide PA is fine
as a general document. Revisions should be addressed at the
state level with the individual protocols.”
- “For the most part. (it’s
working). (We)… are not interested in terminating the
agreement.”
- “Yes. BLM provides financial
assistance for updating our statewide database of historic and
archaeological sites.”
- “…the nationwide agreement
needs amending. BLM is currently doing a good job, but we are
less than a year into implementation of the new protocol.”
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.
Conclusions
The responses to the questionnaire were
useful in identifying common issues that could be addressed on
several levels:
- Native American consultation and
identifying potential consulting parties need Advisory Council
comment and perhaps amendments in the nationwide PA.
- There is a need for more communication,
not less: NCSHPO needs to be presented opportunities, if not
individual SHPOs, on proposed changes to regulations dealing
with oil and gas leasing and drilling, grazing and on policies
regarding Native American consultation.
- If the Preservation Board and the
Advisory Council are not providing oversight as described in
the PA, then more authority needs to be vested in individual
SHPOs and their BLM counterparts, or with NCSHPO. Many of the
problems reported can be fixed locally under the protocols.
Back
to Top
 |
