KF27 A6484 1989 Pt. 8 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi, Chairman WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois LINDY (MRS. HALE) BOGGS, Louisiana W. G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina LES AUCOIN, Oregon DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii WILLIAM H. GRAY III, Pennsylvania BOB CARR, Michigan ROBERT J. MRAZEK, New York RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia LINDSAY THOMAS, Georgia CHESTER G. ATKINS, Massachusetts JIM CHAPMAN, Texas SILVIO O. CONTE, Massachusetts JIM KOLBE, Arizona DEAN A. GALLO, New Jersey FREDERICK G. MOHRMAN, Clerk and Staff Director DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1990 THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 1989. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION WITNESSES ROBERT O. JOHNS, VICE CHAIRMAN ROBERT D. BUSH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JOHN M. FOWLER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND GENERAL COUNSEL Ms. Reporter, are you ready? This is a hearing on the appropriations for Fiscal Year 1990 for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Appearing for the budget for that agency is Dr. Robert Johns, Vice Chairman; Dr. Robert Bush, Executive Director; and Mr. John Fowler, Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel. Dr. Johns, your statement may go into the record at this point. Mr. JOHNS. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Johns follows:] (1) Advisory The Old Post Office Building 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, #809 Washington, DC 20004 STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT 0. JOHNS VICE CHAIRMAN, ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS January 26, 1989 Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, I am Dr. Robert 0. Johns, Vice Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. It gives me great pleasure to present our program and appropriations request for FY 1990. The Council values the support this committee has provided over the years. The Council is an independent Federal agency created by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and is composed of 19 members, including heads of six Federal agencies, the Architect of the Capitol, representatives of State and local governments, the preservation community, and non-Federal members appointed by the President. We have two principal duties: to advise the President and Congress on matters concerning the national historic preservation program and to oversee the process established under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to protect historic properties from needless harm by Federal activities. To carry out these duties, our FY 1989 appropriation is $1.778 million; our requested level for FY 1990 is $1.795 million. Under Section 106, we review more than 1,500 projects each year, ranging from the construction of reservoirs and highways to the rehabilitation of historic buildings and the issuance of Federal permits for private construction activities. More than 700 of these projects involve consultation among the Federal agency, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Council to deal with the effects on historic properties, with particular attention to mitigating adverse impacts. Through open discussions among interested parties, examination of possible alternatives, and consideration of the views of the affected public, balanced and reasonable solutions are reached. Needed Federal projects proceed, and historic preservation values are protected. 2 The agreed-upon solutions to potential conflicts between historic preservation and Federal projects achieve a variety of objectives. First and foremost, they usually result in the accommodation of project needs with historic preservation goals through modification or redesign of the project. Quite often, through the input of expert advice from the Council and the State Historic Preservation Officer, this is achieved at a savings in cost to the Federal government compared to the original proposal. Second, because the solution is agreed to by the sponsoring agency and the historic preservation interests, it provides a clear blueprint for project development that avoids disputes and delay as the project is implemented. Finally, a definitive agreement with the Federal agency as to its treatment of historic properties establishes a clear record of that agency's compliance with the law. As a result, successful legal challenges which might otherwise delay a worthwhile Federal project are nearly impossible. While During FY 1988, the Council continued the transition to a more streamlined Section 106 review process, based on revised regulations that took effect at the beginning of FY 1987. casework generally flowed more smoothly, we were surprised to find that the number of new Section 106 cases submitted to the Council for comment increased 50% in FY 1988. This development intensified the need for creative management responses to keep the Council abreast of its workload and also providing opportunities for initiatives in the area of preservation policy and public education. New internal operating procedures adopted by the members in 1988 shortened review periods for Federal projects at the Council and helped us respond to the dramatic increase in caseload. Likewise, a major staff reorganization was put into place at the beginning of FY 1989, revamping the structure of the project review offices and creating a new office devoted to agency program improvement, training and policy development. All in all, these management reforms have allowed us for the most part to maintain a reasonable pace with our increasing caseload, although cases carried over to the next year continue to rise. Also, we have not been able to devote as much time as we believe is necessary to long-range efforts to improve the preservation capabilities of Federal agencies. It is in this latter area that we hope to reduce the Council's involvement in individual Section 106 case review over the long run. Despite the increased caseload demands, the Council did make some notable progress in its long-term objectives of Federal program improvement. Training sessions for Federal, State and local officials reached an all-time high. Almost 600 officials 3 attended 21 sessions of the Council's formal Section 106 training course, "Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law," which is cosponsored with the General Services Administration's Training Center. In addition, Council staff participated in numerous other training and informational sessions, which raised the general understanding of the Section 106 for participants. Another area of achievement in FY 1988 was the completion of important Section 106 guidance documents. These materials provide advice and guidance to participants in the review process by answering commonly asked questions and suggesting solutions to frequently encountered problems. A comprehensive document on identifying historic properties was jointly issued by the Council and the Department of the Interior. Several informal fact sheets on such subjects as Native American participation and programmatic agreements were also issued. Other efforts to improve Federal agency historic preservation capabilities were successfully pursued in FY 1988, although the increased caseload limited the staff resources available for this important work. Most The Council uses several mechanisms to attain this goal. useful is the Programmatic Agreement, in which the Council, one or more State Historic Preservation Officers, and a Federal agency agree on a program for treating historic properties in connection with some large or complex Federal activity. This agreement supersedes application of the regulations to specific cases and is tailored to the needs of the agency, the particular activities, and the types of historic properties in question. The Programmatic Agreement reduces paperwork, speeds up the timeframes for agency reviews of their undertakings, and cuts back on the number of steps required in the consultation process. Additionally, the Council has provided supplementary advice to Federal agencies on appropriate, efficient, and workable ways to deal with the Section 106 review process. Current examples of this are guidance documents on identifying historic properties and public participation in the Section 106 process. These are being prepared under the supervision of a Council member task force. We have found that the resources invested in programmatic and training efforts reap significant dividends over the long term for both the Council and Federal program agencies. In the long run developing internal preservation systems and capabilities is the key to sensitive consideration of historic preservation values by Federal agencies. With proper guidance, education, and tailored procedures, agencies solve their own problems with less need for recourse to the Council. |