This is a reposting from ARCH-L. I apologize for the duplication, but felt
that it was important enough.
Anita Cohen-Williams; Reference Services; Hayden Library
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1006
PHONE: (602) 965-4579 FAX: (602) 965-9169
INTERNET: [log in to unmask] Owner: HISTARCH, SPANBORD
*** Forwarding note from CHICORA1--CMSNAMES 03/27/95 19:08 ***
Return-Path: <[log in to unmask]>
Received: from ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@ASUACAD) by
ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1863; Mon,
27 Mar 1995 19:08:13 -0700
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 21:06:36 -0500
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: Archaeology List <[log in to unmask]>
From: Michael Trinkley <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: congress attacks hist preser
X-cc: [log in to unmask]
To: Multiple recipients of list ARCH-L <[log in to unmask]>
First, this posted to ARCH-L and PUBLHIST, so I apologize in advance for
duplications.
Second, I want to thank (and acknowledge) my colleagues at Gray and Pape
(Cincinnati, OH) for passing this information along to me. The first I saw it
was in their newsletter. Although I was ignorant, everyone else may already
be aware of this issue. If so, once again my apologies.
On February 16 Representatives James V. Hansen (R-Utah; Chair, Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests, and Lands of the House Resources Committee),
Wayne Allard (R-Colorado; Chair, Subcommittee on Resource Conservation,
Research, and Forestry of the House Agriculture Committee), and Barbara
Vucanovich (R-Nevada; Member, Interior Subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee) sent a letter to Mr. Robert D. Bush, Executive
Director of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Although the letter concentrates on restrictions to the proposed rules
developed by the Advisory Council, the scope of the letter is quite sweeping.
In particular, it challanges the "regulatory burden" of the National Historic
Preservation Act. It expresses concern that government needs to more
aggressively seek the "protection of private property." And it discusses a
move to reduce federal historic preservation concerns to only "the most
important historic properties in the country."
It seems that Congress is beginning to focus in on archaeology, historic
preservation, and the National Historic Preservation Act. While the
discipline shouldn't be surprised, this seems to be a strong first volley and
I haven't seen any response (although I understand that SAA is preparing an
Action Alert.
In the meantime, below is some additional information (the most recent I have
access to) if you would care to write/call/fax (I would suggest all three)
the authors of the letter:
The Honorable Wayne Allard
US House of Representatives
422 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0604
phone - 202/225-4676
fax - 202/225-8630
District Address is:
Rocky Mountain Bldg., Suite 307
315 W Oak Street
Fort Collins, CO 80521
phone - 303/493-9132
fax - 303/493-9144
Representative Allard has been in Congress since Jan 1991. He was educated at
Colorado State University (DVM, 1968). His administrative assistant is Roy
Palmer.
The Honorable Barbara F. Vucanovich
US House of Representatives
2202 Rayburn House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515-2802
phone - 202/225-6155
fax - 202/225-2319
District address:
401 Railroad St., Room 307
Elka, NV 89801-3513
phone - 702/738-4064
fax - 702/738-4796
Representative Vucanovich has been in Congress since Jan. 1983. She attended
the Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart 1938-1939. Her administrative
assistant is Michael J. Pieper.
The Honorable James V. Hansen
US House of Representatives
2466 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4401
phone - 202/225-0453
fax - 202/225-5857
District address:
Federal Building, Room 1017
324 25th St.
Ogden, UT 84401-2361
phone - 801/393-8362
fax - 801/621-7846
Representative Hansen has been in Congress since Jan 1981 and his
administrative assistant is Nancee W. Blockinger. He attended the University
of Utah (BS, 1961) and lists his occupation as an "insurance executive."
You may wish to also write your own congressional respresentives on this
issue. Just as an observation, a written letter, followed up by a fax and
then a personal call is MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE THAN ANY ONE ALONE. And, perhaps
surprisingly, any one of these is much more effective than e-mail.
Just so you know what the letter said, it is reprinted below. While it helps
to respond to specific issues or comments, you may want to concentrate on
just one or perhaps two issues (the letter is full of side-tracks). In
addition, it would probably be good to ensure that letters focus on the
benfits of the NHPA to the public, to prevent a reply that archaeologists are
only supporting legislation which keeps them employed.
"A number of our constituents have contacted us regarding your "recently
issued proposed rules on protection of historic properties. "After careful
review of that proposed rule, their comments, and "recently enacted
amendments to the National Historic Preservation "Act, it is our conclusion
that this proposed rule should be rewritten, "and re-issued in draft for
additional public comment. Simply stated, "it is unacceptable to us that any
agency would propose burdensome "new regulations on our already
over-regulated society, particularly "when these regulations exceed the
authority of the underlying "statute.
"The statement in your Impact Analysis that "The Council's "regulations in
their current and revised form only impose obligations "on federal agencies"
leads us to wonder if you really understand the "scope and effect of your own
regulations. Compliance with the "National Historic Preservation Act is
already costing both "government and the private sector tens of millions of
dollars "annually. The cummulative impact of your proposed rule, including
"such newly articulated policies as requiring that destruction of "historic
properties always be the "last resort" is that the cost of "compliance will
increase substantially. Under your proposed "regulations, federal agencies
will have every incentive to pass "increased costs on to an already
overburdedned private sector and "little incentive to reduce overall
regulation costs.
"Time and time again, whether it be implementation of the "Endangered Species
Act, Clean Water Act, or a myriad of other "environmental laws, we have seen f
ederal agencies extend the "scope of the law through the regulatory process.
The American "public and Congress will no longer tolerate such action by
federal "agencies. Aspects of your proposed rule which violate this principle,
"such as the redefinition of the area of potential effects, must be
"revised.
"Two other aspects of your proposed regulations, which are "particularly
troublesome, are the open-ended timeframes and "unlimited public standing.
While it is a concept largely foreign to "more federal regulatory agencies,
time is money to the private "sector. The lack of discrete timeframes for
many aspects of your "proposed rule and the opportunity for reopeners at
almost any point "(even after the conclusion of the 106 process) must be
addressed. "Similarly, the open invitation for anyone, at virtually any time
in the "process, to become an obstructionist for the cost of a 32-cent "stamp
must be changed. Public involvement is necessary and "appropriate, but it
must be limited in a fashion similar to that "provided in the Nataional
Environmental Policy Act where input is "sought at the outset and at a single
point in time prior to final "decision-making. Private parties with some
level of standing with "respect to a particular proposal should be offered an
increased, "though still structured, opportunity for input.
"By way of further background, we point out to you that at a January "11
hearing before the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations, "several private
institutions advocated elimination of all funding for the "Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. We are not yet convinced "that such action is
appropriate, since we believe there is every "opportunity for the Advisory
Council to return to its role as a "facilitator in the implementation of the
Historic Preservation Act, "rather than another layer of federal bureaucracy
sitting in judgement "over federal agencies and the private sector. Toward
that end, we "request that no later than 60 days from the date and receipt of
this "letter you transmit, to the Chairman of the House National Parks,
"Forests, and Lands Subcommittee, amendments which will reduce "the
regulatory burden of the Act, ensure protection of private "property, and ensu
re that the efforts of the federal government are "focused on the most
important historic properties in the country.
"We appreciate your attention to our comments and look forward to "working
with you toward a resolution.
Hope that everyone will excuse the length of this posting and spend a few
minutes writing concerning this issue. Thank you.
Michael Trinkley
Chicora Foundation, Inc.
PO Box 8664
Columbia, SC 29202-8664
803/787-6910
[log in to unmask]
|
