Mr. FOWLER. Let's go back to look Mr. YATES. I thought you were trying to preserve this historic district and you were trying to stop a highway from going through Wallace, Idaho. Mr. FOWLER. What we are trying to do is certainly get the best preservation solution when there is a conflict between federal projects and historic properties. That can't always be done. Mr. YATES. Can you stop it? Mr. FOWLER. No. All we can do in the end is advise federal agencies that they shouldn't spend federal funds in a way that destroys historic property. Mr. YATES. Then it is up to the federal agency to decide whether to comply with your recommendations? Mr. FOWLER. Correct. If we look at the chart on Table 5, you will see that out of the 2,100 cases that we had this year, only seven of them reached that comment stage. Quite often we will recommend that an agency go back and consider alternatives that it hasn't considered before. For instance, in Mobile, Alabama, the Alabama Highway Department had proposed to put in an elevated river front expressway that would isolate the historic district in downtown Mobile from the river and the waterfront. We recommended that they not build the elevated expressway, that they look at alternatives, including bringing that expressway down to grade and making it a city boulevard. We learned just recently that there has been a court settlement. The case is being litigated under other laws. There has been a court settlement where the highway department has agreed to do just that. So while originally they had disagreed with our recommendations, they were not going to follow those recommendations. In the end, under pressure of citizens and their elected representatives, they came up with a solution that was consistent with our recommendation. CASELOAD Mr. YATES. In 1987, you had 2,176 cases. That is from all over the country? Mr. FOWLER. Correct. Mr. YATES. How many of those are disposed of? Rather than that, let me ask you this question. In 1988-did I say 1987? Mr. FOWLER. Eighty-eight. Mr. YATES. In 1987, you had 1,563 cases. How many are disposed of? Mr. FOWLER. 1,141. Mr. YATES. What happens to the remainder? 422 were carried over to the next year. Most of those are cases that have a long gestation period. The agency has a planning process that may extend over several years. We may respond to the agency initially in 1987 with some suggestions at the staff level, where we would be asking for further investigations of alternatives, and so on. As the agency is moving forward planning something as complex as a highway, the planning process will extend over several years. Some of these cases are not things that are attributable to our inability to respond. Mr. YATES. It would seem that in many of these cases, time is of the essence, isn't it? This is a development that wants to take place. You have got developers, you have got the local agencies. Are you able to dispose of the cases in time for them to proceed with their plans? Mr. FOWLER. I think that our track record has been quite good in terms of being responsive within the time frames of the regulations and within the time frames of the agencies outside the regulations set for Council's response. What is happening-to turn back to your earlier question about the decrease in programmatic agreements-what is happening in 1988 and 1989, and what we are projecting for 1990, is that resources we hoped we would be able to put into program improvement, programmatic agreements and so on, those resources were being diverted to meet the increasing case load. As you recall in our initial FY 1990 request to OMB and Congress, we asked for two additional positions. That would have provided us with the capability to make those figures for the program improvement area go up instead of simply be a straight line or decline slightly. BACKLOG OF CASES Mr. YATES. I notice from your table 5, the backlog has doubled since 1987. You have a projected backlog of 808 cases for 1990? Mr. FOWLER. That is based on the anticipation that with constant level of staff resources that we are not going to be able to meet the demands placed on us fully. There are going to be more cases that will have to be carried over from year to year. Mr. YATES. Will two additional people help curb that backlog? Mr. FOWLER. Very much so. Mr. YATES. How will that happen? What is the nature of the two people you want? Mr. FOWLER. The Mr. YATES. What kind of jobs are those? Mr. FOWLER. They would serve historic preservation specialists. Mr. BUSH. The actual costs we worked out, Mr. Chairman, was for basic salaries, $55,000. Then with the benefits at about $5,000, and with the necessary requirements for such things as travel and other supplies to support those two positions, the total on that would be about $67,000 increase. TIMELY COMMENTS Mr. YATES. I don't remember that you replied to my question about time being of the essence. Is that a factor in your cases? Mr. FOWLER. Very much so. For example, we have to respond to agencies within 30 days with memoranda agreements that they have worked out with the state. In those complicated cases where we did not reach agreement and the agency seeking the Council's comment, we have a 60-day time limit on that. What that does is skew the rest of our case load because we have to respond in order to meet the regulatory time frames. Things that don't have these time frames get put on the back burner because we have to meet our regulatory requirements to start with. INCREASED PERSONNEL COSTS Mr. YATES. All right. In addition to the pay increase, you have revised your grade structure for preservation specialists and division chiefs. Will this have an impact on your personnel costs for 1990? Mr. BUSH. Yes, sir. Mr. YATES. What impact will it have? Mr. BUSH. The difference will be approximately a 15 percent increase, Mr. Chairman, about $46,000 for more than-— Mr. YATES. How are you going to pay for it? Mr. BUSH. Right now the way we are going to pay for it is simply curtailment of some of our other activities, cut back on travel. Mr. YATES. What does that mean, curtailment of your other activities? Mr. BUSH. Cutting back on some of our printing, travel and any other areas where we can make some modest budget adjustments to try and pick up that difference. Mr. YATES. How are you going to cut back on travel? Aren't you required to travel to areas of the Country in order to see what is going on? Mr. BUSH. Yes, sir, we are. We have to put those priorities in place as far as what we can do in terms of the differences as far as travel goes. PRINTING Mr. YATES. How important is the printing item? Mr. BUSH. It is very important in terms of our reaching our constituencies. We have not only the annual report, but our facts sheets-our special projects and certainly with things such as the award brochure this year. We requested additional money in our 1988 budget to deal with that since that is a one-time only program. We have cut the budget back for printing costs to help absorb the pay increases. Mr. YATES. You asked OMB for $68,000 for printing. They approved $27,000. Apparently somebody wasn't impressed there. Mr. BUSH. They were not, Mr. Chairman. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Mr. YATES. Okay. What is the estimated costs in this year and next year for the administrative services with the Department of Interior? Mr. BUSH. This year the administrative services is at a little over $78,000, Mr. Chairman, but that is projected to rise to approximately 95,000 if I remember correctly. Yes, this year it is expected to go to $95,000 Mr. Chairman, from a present figure in 1989 of $78,000. Mr. YATES. Does the Council have vacancies in staff which it will not fill in fiscal year 1990? Mr. BUSH. Not at this time, sir. AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION Mr. YATES. What is the status of the Council's authorizing legislation? Mr. BUSH. It has been submitted to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate from our Chairman, Mr. John L. Rogers, about two weeks ago with OMB approval. PERSONNEL LAPSE Mr. YATES. In response to my question, you said you didn't anticipate there would be any loss of personnel. On page 18 of your justifications, you show a projected personnel lapses of minus $25,000. On page 33 of the justification you have increased that to $37,200. How do you reconcile that? Mr. BUSH. I stand corrected, Mr. Chairman. What we were figuring is the routine personnel lapses in terms of possible vacancies. In my response to your question, I did not at this time anticipate that anybody, I did not have a resignation in hand. I misunderstood your question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. YATES. Okay. Mr. BUSH. You may recall last year we did have two resignations when we appeared before you, including at that point we were without a Chairman. COUNCIL MEETINGS Mr. YATES. When is your next Council meeting? Mr. Bush. It is scheduled for the 27th and 28th of February, Mr. Chairman. Mr. YATES. What will you be discussing other than the budget? Mr. BUSH. Well, at the last Council meeting, at the instructions of Chairman Rogers, we tried to organize the agenda around council having an opportunity to deal with some very specific issues. At our Council meeting in September, we met in Gallup, New Mexico and Window Rock, Arizona, on the Navajo Indian Reservation for a portion of the time to deal with issues in historic preservation affecting the Native Americans. We held the meeting in Gallup at the invitation of the Navajo Nation to deal with those issues, to have some first-hand, and hands-on opportunity to see some of the specific problems that confront the Native Americans. Dealing with it around that basic issue, the council took several actions which are in the budget justfications as table number one. In answer to your question as to the February meeting agenda, we have our focus to deal with the issue of historic preservation and economic development in the urban environment. As a result, we are developing a series of issues that involve the Federal presence and its historic preservation responsibilities in the urban environment. We are dealing with such things as our responsibilities for historic preservation and planning, working with the cities in terms of what it means for such things as urban development and where preservation comes in. That is the theme around which our agenda is being built in addition to our routine business, of which the budget would be only one item. WEST POINT PROJECT Mr. YATES. You want to tell us about your plan for West Point? Mr. BUSH. Yes, sir. We are very pleased about the West Point plan. We are into the second calendar year of that project at this time. It is something that has occupied a great deal of our interest and certainly Council enthusiasm. When it was originally proposed to us, I think several members of the Council staff and the Council itself had certain reservations about why should we be involved in this. As we have become more directly involved and began working on it, the actual implications of the work we are doing for the Academy is showing us a great deal of opportunity for the whole of the planning process with the Department of Defense in this case. As we have begun to apply some of the technology, we are learning, some of the planning processes that we are gathering, working with the Corps of Engineers in their research laboratory. Whether it happens to be the built structures at the academy or archeology, the result has been a widening of our own horizons as to what we can do. The Academy itself has been very supportive. We have met with them on site on several different occasions, and they have come to our location to be able to coordinate how we are doing this. The advantage that I see is to look at it more program-wise as to what the long-term implications of this whole project are. I see a number of ways that the techniques we are learning, the experience we are gaining, the technology that we are learning to adapt to preservation planning is such that it is going to be very valuable for us in our relationship with the other agencies. We are scheduled to conclude our contract with the Department of Defense in April or May of this year, by which time we will deliver to them a complete system and which we will be providing copies to the Members of Congress of our report on the project and what was accomplished, what it is we could not accomplish, what the costs were and what the results will be for the Advisory Council. BACKLOG CONCERNS Mr. YATES. Well, the thing that concerns me is what is going to happen to your activities if we don't give you personnel. Your backlog is going to build up, isn't it? Mr. BUSH. Yes, sir, there is no doubt about it. Mr. YATES. Well, don't you really need more than two people? Mr. BUSH. I think―― Mr. YATES. What would happen if you had more than two people? Two people will keep you at your present level, wouldn't it? It will stop the backlog from building up? |