THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND
THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICERS
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE BLM WILL MEET ITS RESPONSIBILITIES
UNDER THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), consistent with its authorities and responsibilities under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), is charged with managing public lands principally located in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming in a manner that will “protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values,” and “that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.”
The BLM also has specific responsibilities and authorities to consider, plan for, protect, and enhance historic properties and other resources that may be affected by its actions, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and implementing regulations of Section 106 of the NHPA at 36 CFR part 800, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the Antiquities Act, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Executive Order (EO) 13007 (“Indian Sacred Sites”), EO 13287 (“Preserve America”), EO 13175 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”), and related authorities.
In carrying out its responsibilities specific to the NHPA, the BLM has: (1) developed policies and procedures through its directives system (BLM Manual Sections 8100-8170); (2) executed a national programmatic agreement (PA) in 1997 to help guide the BLM’s planning and decision making as it affects historic properties as defined in the NHPA; and (3) assembled a cadre of cultural heritage specialists to advise the BLM’s managers and to implement cultural heritage policies consistent with the BLM’s statutory authorities.
State Historic Preservation Officers. State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) are represented by the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) for the purpose of negotiating and executing this agreement, and have responsibilities under state law as well as under Section 101(b) of the NHPA that include:
§ “advise and assist as appropriate, Federal and State agencies and local governments in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities;”
§ “maintain inventories” of historic properties in cooperation with Federal and state agencies; and
§ “consult with the appropriate Federal agencies in accordance with [the NHPA] on Federal undertakings that may affect historic properties, and the content and sufficiency of any plans developed to protect, manage, or to reduce or mitigate harm to such properties.”
In addition, under Section 110(a)(2)(D) and Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the NHPA, Federal agencies are required to consult with the SHPO to identify and evaluate historic properties for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), and on the development and implementation of agreements regarding the means by which adverse effects on such properties will be considered.
In certain cases, others may be authorized to act in the place of the SHPO. Where the Secretary of the Interior has approved an Indian tribe’s preservation program pursuant to Section 101(d)(2) of the NHPA, a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) may perform some or all SHPO functions with respect to tribal lands, defined as all lands within the exterior boundaries of any Indian reservation and all dependent Indian communities, consistent with 36 CFR 800.16(x). A certified local government acting through the chief local elected official may fulfill some SHPO-delegated functions, where the Secretary has certified the local government pursuant to Section 101(c)(1) of the NHPA, and its actions apply to lands in its jurisdiction. Pursuant to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800.3(c)(4)), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) may at times act in lieu of the SHPO.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The ACHP has the responsibility to:
(1) administer the process implementing Sections 106, 110(f), and 111(a) of the NHPA; (2) to comment with regard to Federal undertakings subject to review under Sections 106, 110(f), and 111(a) of the NHPA in accordance with its implementing regulations (36 CFR part 800); and (3) “review the policies and programs of Federal agencies and recommend to such agencies methods to improve the effectiveness, coordination, and consistency of those policies and programs with the policies and programs carried out” under Section 202(a)(6) of the NHPA.
Indian Tribes. This agreement is entered into pursuant to the NHPA, which specifically requires that agencies consult with federally recognized tribes as defined in that Act so that these Indian tribes may: (1) identify their concerns about historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural significance to them; (2) advise agencies on the identification and evaluation of historic properties; (3) articulate their views on the potential effects of an undertaking; and (4) participate in resolving adverse effects. The BLM consults with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis consistent with the Department of the Interior’s tribal consultation policy. While the BLM may initiate consultation under multiple authorities at one time, this agreement governs compliance with the NHPA and in no way supersedes the BLM’s other treaty, trust, and consultation responsibilities to Indian tribes under multiple other authorities.
Consulting Parties. Consulting parties include representatives of local governments, applicants, and certain individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the undertaking due to the nature of their legal or economic relation to the undertaking or affected properties, or their concern with the undertaking’s effects on historic properties (36 CFR 800.2(c)(3-5)). In consultation with the SHPO/THPO, the BLM shall identify consulting parties and invite them to participate in consultation and shall consider all written requests of individuals and organizations to participate as consulting parties (36 CFR 800.3(f)).
The Public. The views of the public are essential to informed Federal decision-making, and the BLM shall seek and consider the views of the public in a manner that reflects the nature and complexity of the undertaking and its effects on historic properties. The BLM must also provide the public with information about an undertaking and seek public comment and input (36 CFR 800.2(d)). Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), the BLM may use its agency procedures as contained in the BLM-SHPO protocols or BLM NEPA procedures to involve the public.
The BLM, NCSHPO, and the ACHP—in consultation with Indian tribes and interested parties—now wish to ensure that the BLM will organize its programs to operate efficiently, effectively, according to the spirit and intent of Section 106 of the NHPA, and in a manner consistent with 36 CFR Part 800. The parties also wish to ensure that the BLM will integrate its historic preservation planning and management decisions with other policy and program requirements to the maximum extent. The BLM, the SHPOs, and the ACHP desire and intend, in the public interest, to streamline and simplify procedural requirements, reduce unnecessary paperwork, and emphasize the common goal of planning for and managing historic properties under the BLM’s jurisdiction and control.
Basis for Agreement
Proceeding from these responsibilities, goals, and objectives, the parties acknowledge the following basis for agreement:
WHEREAS the BLM’s management of lands and mineral resources may affect historic properties as defined by the NHPA; and
WHEREAS, among other things, the BLM’s historic preservation program, established in response to Section 110(a)(2) of the NHPA and related authorities provides a systematic basis for: (1) identifying, evaluating, and nominating historic properties under the BLM’s jurisdiction or control to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register); (2) managing and maintaining properties listed in or eligible for the National Register in a way that considers the preservation of their archaeological, historical, architectural, and cultural values and the avoidance of adverse effects in consultation with Indian tribes, local governments, consulting parties, and the interested public; and (3) giving special consideration to the preservation of such values in the case of properties designated as having national significance; and
WHEREAS the BLM’s program is also intended to ensure that the bureau’s preservation-related activities will be carried out in consultation with Indian tribes, other Federal agencies, local governments, consulting parties, and the interested public; and
WHEREAS the BLM’s program also is intended to: (1) ensure that the bureau’s procedures for compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA are consistent with current regulations issued by the ACHP pursuant to Section 211 of the NHPA (36 CFR part 800, “Protection of Historic Properties”); (2) provide a process for the identification and evaluation of historic properties for listing in the National Register and the development and implementation of agreements, in consultation with SHPOs, Indian tribes, local governments, consulting parties, and the interested public, as appropriate, regarding the means by which adverse effects on such properties will be considered and resolved; and
WHEREAS the BLM recognizes that the 1997 PA and resulting internal BLM formal guidance do not incorporate the current 36 CFR Part 800 definition of “adverse effect” and role of “consulting parties” in the NHPA Section 106 process, and the BLM will initiate revision of the relevant manual sections upon execution of this agreement; and
WHEREAS individual SHPOs, particularly those in states containing a high percentage of public land under the BLM’s jurisdiction and control, have a great interest in forming a cooperative relationship with the BLM to facilitate a more effective and efficient Section 106 consultation process, and promote activities of mutual interest, and;
WHEREAS the BLM acknowledges that Indian tribes possess special expertise in assessing the eligibility of historic properties that may possess religious and cultural significance to them in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4(c)(1), and;
WHEREAS the BLM’s programs benefit from consultation with Indian tribes in BLM’s identification and management of properties of religious and cultural significance and will ensure that its NHPA Section 106 procedures recognize the interests of Indian tribes in historic properties potentially affected by BLM decisions and afford tribes participation in the process leading up to a BLM decision, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800; and
WHEREAS this agreement will not apply to proposed BLM undertakings located on or affecting historic properties on tribal lands, with respect to which the BLM will comply with the regular Section 106 process under 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7, the process under 36 CFR 800.8(c), or an applicable program alternative under 36 CFR 800.14, and;
WHEREAS, for undertakings not on tribal lands, the BLM employs the basic principles of government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes under cultural resources authorities including the NHPA as reflected in this PA; and consults with the tribal representatives designated by the tribal governments for the purpose of identifying properties of religious and cultural significance that may be eligible for listing on the National Register and to understand tribal concerns; and
WHEREAS Indian tribes, especially those whose present or ancestral lands are located in areas where the BLM has surface or subsurface management responsibilities, may enter into formal or informal agreements with the BLM regarding consultation procedures under the NHPA Section 106 and that some tribes may want to form a cooperative relationship with the BLM in a manner consistent with the purposes of this agreement to achieve a more effective and efficient Section 106 consultation process; and
WHEREAS the parties intend that efficiencies in the NHPA Section 106 process, realized through this agreement, will enable the BLM, SHPO, and ACHP staffs to devote a larger percentage of their time and energies to proactive work, including: (1) analysis and synthesis of data accumulated through decades of Section 106 compliance; (2) historic property identification where information is needed, not just in reaction to proposed undertakings;
(3) long-term preservation planning; (4) National Register nominations; (5) planning- and priority-based historic resource management; (6) creative public education and interpretation; (7) more efficient and effective BLM, SHPO, tribal, and ACHP coordination, including program monitoring and dispute resolution; and (8) other activities that will contribute to readily recognizable tribal and public benefits; and
WHEREAS the BLM has consulted with the Indian tribes and the interested public regarding ways to ensure that the BLM’s planning and management will be more fully integrated and consistent with the above authorities, requirements, and objectives;
NOW, THEREFORE, the BLM, the ACHP, and the NCSHPO mutually agree that the BLM, consistent with the provisions of Component 1 of this PA below, will meet its responsibilities under the NHPA through this agreement as provided for in 36 CFR 800.14(b), rather than by following the procedure set forth in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7. The BLM will integrate the manner in which it meets its historic preservation responsibilities as fully as possible with its other responsibilities for land-use planning and resource management under FLPMA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), other statutory authorities, and executive orders and policies.
The BLM shall ensure that the following components are carried out:
Components of Agreement
This agreement supersedes the 1997 PA. Existing state-specific BLM-SHPO protocols under the 1997 agreement will remain in effect until the respective BLM state director executes a successor BLM-SHPO protocol with each state per Component 6 of this agreement or until terminated. No existing informal and formal agreements between the BLM and an Indian tribe or tribes will be altered by this agreement. Any state not operating under a BLM-SHPO protocol will operate under 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7, 36 CFR 800.8(c), or an applicable program alternative under 36 CFR 800.14.
2. BLM Consultation Responsibilities with SHPOs and the ACHP under this Agreement
a. This agreement encourages:
(1) BLM state directors and SHPOs to develop mutually agreed upon two-party BLM-SHPO protocols regulating their relationship and how consultation will take place;
(2) BLM state directors and SHPOs to establish streamlined (as opposed to case-by-case) consultation on evaluation of cultural resources for National Register eligibility and for no-historic-properties-affected, no-adverse-effect, and adverse-effect determinations when BLM and SHPO reach agreement on resolving the adverse effect(s);
(3) BLM state directors to make a schedule of pending actions, including land exchanges, available to the public and Indian tribes on a regular basis;
(4) BLM state directors to contact on a regular basis Indian tribes affected by undertakings within his or her jurisdiction and develop tribe-specific procedures for tribal consultation; and
(5) BLM state directors to use phased identification and evaluation as described in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2) as a strategy for meeting the BLM’s NHPA Section 106 responsibility for programs implemented through a phased decision making process beginning with land use planning designations that may affect large land areas. A phased compliance process requires that the bureau demonstrate that it has taken some steps to take into account the effect of the undertaking on potentially eligible sites in each phase, and that until a reasonable effort has been made to identify all potentially eligible sites, the bureau retains the ability to modify the project, if necessary, e.g., through no-surface-occupancy or other stipulations, or specific permit restrictions or covenants.
b. This agreement requires:
(1) the BLM to follow the process at 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7, 36 CFR 800.8(c), or another applicable program alternative under 36 CFR 800.14, for undertakings within any state that does not have a BLM-SHPO protocol under this agreement and for undertakings on or affecting tribal lands;
(2) the BLM to consult with the relevant SHPO, Indian tribes (see Component 6.c), and other consulting parties for all undertakings that will adversely affect properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, and for the development of any procedures such as project-specific PAs;
(3) the BLM to invite the ACHP to participate in consultation when undertakings meet the thresholds in Component 5 of this agreement; and
(4) the BLM to follow the process at 36 CFR 800.6(b)(2) or 800.14(b) to resolve adverse effects whenever the ACHP formally participates in the resolution of adverse effects for an undertaking.
3. Operation of the BLM’s Preservation Board
a. The BLM Director will maintain a Preservation Board to advise the BLM Director, assistant directors, state directors, and district and field office managers in the development and implementation of the BLM’s policies and procedures for NHPA implementation.
b. The Preservation Board will be chaired by the BLM’s Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) designated under Section 110(c) of the NHPA, and will include a professionally qualified Deputy Preservation Officer (DPO) from each state office and the BLM national Tribal Coordinator as ex officio members. Field management will be represented by at least four line managers (i.e., officials who are authorized by the Director’s or state directors’ delegation to make land-use decisions). Field office cultural resource specialists will be represented by two members. Line manager and field office cultural resource specialist positions will be term positions.
c. The Preservation Board will perform primary staff work and make recommendations to the BLM Director and state directors concerning policies and procedures (Component 4 below), bureau-wide policy implementation (Component 4 below), training (Component 7 below), certification and decertification of district or field offices (Component 9 below), monitoring of district and field offices’ historic preservation programs (Component 10 below), and responses to public inquiries (Component 10 below).
d. In addition, the Preservation Board shall meet with the ACHP and NCSHPO on a regular basis. In coordination with individual BLM DPO(s) and/or BLM Tribal Coordinator(s), as appropriate, the Preservation Board will address formal communications it receives from the ACHP and the NCSHPO, individual SHPOs, local governments, preservation and professional associations, individual tribes, and other tribal entities that have identified themselves to the Board as interested parties, regarding recurrent problems or concerns with state, regional, or national practice, and will otherwise seek to create opportunities to advance the purposes of this agreement.
4. Cultural Resource Management Procedures for Consideration of the Effects of the BLM’s Undertakings on Historic Properties
As required by the NHPA Section 106 process and this agreement, the field manager—with the assistance of qualified professional staff and in consultation with the SHPO according to the process in the BLM-SHPO protocol, and with Indian tribes and consulting parties—identifies, evaluates, and assesses effects of the BLM’s proposed actions on historic properties. This Component sets out the alternative framework, which, at a minimum, must be reflected in BLM-SHPO protocols or reflected with respect to individual projects utilizing this agreement to comply with Section 106.
a. Consultation with Indian tribes and the SHPO at the outset of land use planning is a vital part of identification and management of historic properties. Involving tribal governments and SHPOs closely at this level of resource consideration will greatly facilitate coordination and consultation at later stages of planning and project development and will afford the best opportunity to foresee and avoid potential conflicts between BLM-authorized land uses and significant historic properties. District and Field office managers will seek information in accordance with BLM land use planning and environmental review processes and the tribal consultation policies outlined in Section f of Component 4 below, from Indian tribes and other parties likely to have knowledge of or concerns with historic properties in the area to:
(1) Identify properties of religious and cultural significance that may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places;
(2) Understand tribal and other parties’ concerns sufficiently to better understand the effects that potential future Federal undertakings might have on eligible properties; and
(3) Consider comments provided in making decisions on the land use plan, and notify consulted parties of the relevant final land use planning decisions.
b. Prior to initiating or authorizing a proposed action that meets the definition of “undertaking” in 36 CFR 800.16(y) and is a type of activity that generically has the potential to cause effects to historic properties (with the assumption that historic properties are present), the responsible district or field office manager shall:
(1) Determine the undertaking’s area of potential effects;
(2) Review existing information on historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, including documentation of previous tribal consultation;
(3) Seek information in accordance with BLM land use planning and environmental review processes from Indian tribes and other parties likely to have knowledge of or concerns with historic properties, particularly properties of traditional religious and cultural significance, in the area;
(4) Determine the need for further actions, such as field surveys and predictive modeling to identify historic properties in the area;
(5) Make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking as described in 36 CFR 800.4(b)(1); and
(6) Determine if any properties within the area of potential effect, including properties of traditional religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe, meet one or more eligibility criteria specified in 36 CFR 60.4 (association with events; association with lives of significant persons; embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or possessing high artistic value; have yielded or are likely to yield important data), while acknowledging that a formal determination of eligibility may be requested from the Keeper of the National Register pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2) and 36 CFR part 63.
(i) If the BLM field manager determines, consistent with the process in the State’s BLM-SHPO protocol, that a property does not meet the eligibility criteria in 36 CFR 60.4, he or she will provide documentation to the SHPO according to the reporting schedule in the State’s BLM-SHPO protocol, and the property shall be considered not eligible for listing in the National Register and therefore not subject to further consideration under Section 106 and this PA.
(ii) If the field manager determines, consistent with the process in the State’s BLM-SHPO protocol, that a property meets one or more eligibility criteria in 36 CFR 60.4, the property shall be considered eligible for listing in the National Register for purposes of complying with Section 106 of the NHPA and this PA (i.e., an “historic property”).
c. The field manager, upon determining that National Register-listed or eligible historic properties may be affected by an undertaking, shall determine whether those properties may be affected, giving consideration to the views of the interested public and any consulting parties, including, but not limited to Indian tribes.
(1) If the field manager finds that the undertaking will not affect those characteristics of the property that qualify it for listing in the National Register, the field manager will document this finding, proceed with the undertaking, and provide documentation of “no historic property affected” to the SHPO in accordance with the reporting schedule specified in the State’s BLM-SHPO protocol.
(2) If the field manager finds that the undertaking may affect those characteristics of the property that qualify it for listing in the National Register, the field manager will apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect to determine whether the proposed undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, those characteristics in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association (36 CFR 800.5(a)(1)) and will document this finding. If the field manager finds that the effect is not to be adverse or the undertaking is modified to avoid adverse effects, per 36 CFR 800.5(b), and does not meet the threshold for case-by-case review in the State’s BLM-SHPO protocol or the threshold for ACHP notification, the field manager will document this finding, proceed with the undertaking, and report it to the SHPO according to the BLM-SHPO protocol.
d. When a proposed agency decision or undertaking meets the threshold for case-by-case review in accordance with the BLM-SHPO protocol and/or the threshold for ACHP notification as specified in this PA (see Component 5), the field manager shall consult with the SHPO to determine the specific process to be followed in that case including, as appropriate:
(1) Additional actions necessary to identify historic properties;
(2) National Register-listed or eligible historic properties affected by the undertaking;
(3) Effects the undertaking would have on National Register-listed or eligible historic properties; and
(4) Methods for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse effects.
e. If the field manager finds the effect to be adverse and decides to proceed with the undertaking, he or she shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the most reasonable and fitting extent, in consultation with the SHPO, Indian tribes, and other consulting parties, considering the nature of the effects and the characteristics and qualities that lend the property its significance.
f. The special legal status of tribal governments requires that the BLM’s official interactions with them, including consultation, will be carried out in accordance with government-to-government procedures to ensure that tribal participation occurs pursuant to the statutory and regulatory directives in Sections 101(d)(6) and 110(a)(2)(E) of the NHPA and 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2). Consistent with those directives and Department of the Interior tribal consultation policy, the BLM will consult with the tribal government’s official designee in accordance with the following policies.
(1) BLM State directors, and district and field office managers, as appropriate, shall represent the United States in government-to-government meetings with Indian tribes.
(2) District and/or field managers shall establish working relationships with tribal officials comparable to their working relationships with State and local government officials.
(3) District and/or field managers and staffs shall recognize that traditional tribal practices and beliefs are an important, living part of our Nation’s heritage and seek to avoid to the degree possible under existing law and regulation their potential disruption as a consequence of a proposed BLM land use decision.
(4) District and/or field managers and staffs shall protect from disclosure to the public sensitive and confidential information about traditional tribal practices and beliefs, and the locations with which they are associated, to the greatest degree possible under law and regulation. District and field offices shall maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites to the degree possible under existing law and regulation.
(5) District and/or field managers and staffs shall consider and consult with Indian tribes regarding whether a proposed undertaking may inhibit or destroy tribal access to public lands for the purposes of religious use and other traditional uses, such as gathering natural resources, and, shall, consistent with Executive Order 13007, seek to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of sacred sites, as well as avoid unnecessary interference with or adverse effects to traditional religious and cultural properties.
(6) District and/or field managers and staffs shall consult with affected Indian tribes to identify and consider tribal concerns related to the identification and management of historic properties in BLM land use planning and decision-making, and shall document all consultation efforts.
(7) District and/or field managers and staffs shall ensure that information on tribal religious and cultural issues receives good faith consideration during decision-making, and that, to the extent consistent with the law, BLM decisions do not substantially burden the pursuit of traditional religious and cultural practices.
5. Thresholds for ACHP Notification
a. The BLM procedures will identify specific circumstances and conditions that, when met, call for the ACHP’s notification.
b. At a minimum, the BLM will request the ACHP’s participation in the following classes of undertakings:
(1) nonroutine interstate and/or interagency projects or programs;
(2) undertakings adversely affecting National Historic Landmarks;
(3) undertakings that the BLM determines to be highly controversial; and
(4) undertakings that will have an adverse effect and with respect to which disputes cannot be resolved through formal agreement between BLM-SHPO, such as a memorandum of agreement.
c. The development and approval of program alternatives, including project-specific PAs, will follow the process under 36 CFR 800.14.
d. The ACHP reserves the right to participate, on its own initiative or at the request of the SHPO, an Indian tribe, a local government, an applicant or other consulting party, in any proceeding taking place in fulfillment of the BLM’s NHPA Section 106 responsibilities under the regulations, this agreement, or BLM-SHPO protocols, in a manner consistent with its role under 36 CFR Part 800 and the criteria under Appendix A of 36 CFR Part 800 and will notify the responsible BLM state director, and/or district or field office manager and the Director when it decides to participate.
6. Cooperation and Enhanced Communication
This section establishes how the BLM will implement the alternate process afforded by Component 4 above with respect to potential and/or existing BLM-SHPO protocols. It also establishes how the BLM will develop cooperation and enhanced communication with the States and with Indian tribes potentially affected by BLM undertakings.
a. Information on the Web. The BLM will ensure the following information is available on the national BLM web site and will widely publicize this availability:
(1) copy of this revised agreement;
(2) reference copy of the existing BLM internal guidance, including Manual Sections and Manual Handbooks related to “Cultural Resource Management;”
(3) copy of existing BLM-SHPO protocols under the 1997 agreement, used by the BLM within an individual state office’s jurisdiction;
(4) current list of Preservation Board members;
(5) list of BLM DPOs and BLM tribal contacts for each state office;
(6) map of each state showing BLM district and field office boundaries;
(7) annual BLM Washington Office reports; and
(8) BLM’s Preserve America Section 3 report.
b. BLM-SHPO Protocols
Within 12 months of execution of this agreement, each BLM state director or his/her designee will meet with each relevant SHPO to review and consider the need for changes in the BLM-SHPO protocol for that state to meet the minimum requirements specified in this component and notify the ACHP of the results of their review. The state director may request ACHP assistance in identifying specific changes needed in the State’s BLM-SHPO protocol prior to the state director initiating any changes associated with implementation of this agreement. BLM-SHPO protocols determined to require revision must be changed within 24 months of the date of this agreement.
The SHPO or BLM state director may ask the NCSHPO, the Preservation Board, and/or the ACHP to assist at any stage in revising BLM-SHPO protocols. The Preservation Board and the ACHP will be kept informed of the progress of protocol review and revision, and the BLM state office will provide the ACHP an opportunity to review and comment on revised protocols before execution. The state director will also provide the Preservation Board, ACHP, and NCSHPO with an information copy of any signed revision and post it on the BLM web site for that state.
Recognizing that BLM-SHPO protocols implement this agreement, any revisions to BLM-SHPO protocols that alter the process for complying with Section 106 specified in this agreement and any BLM-SHPO protocol that was executed or last revised 10 or more years prior to the date of this agreement, will be subject to consultation requirements as set forth in 36 CFR 800.14, including, in particular, the tribal consultation requirements under 36 CFR 800.14(f).
At a minimum, BLM-SHPO protocols will incorporate the framework outlined in Component 4 of this agreement and address the following:
(1) a means for making a schedule of pending undertakings, including land transfers, available to the public and Indian tribes on a regular basis
(2) a commitment to fulfill tribal consultation obligations;
(3) the manner in which public participation is addressed for protocol-guided compliance processes;
(4) the manner in which the involvement of consulting parties is addressed for protocol-guided compliance processes;
(5) data sharing, including information resource management development, support and security–at a minimum annual transmittal of all site forms and project reports;
(6) data synthesis, including geographical and/or topical priorities for reducing the backlog of un-synthesized site location and report information, and data quality improvement;
(7) public education and community involvement in preservation;
(8) preservation planning;
(9) cooperative stewardship;
(10) agreement as to the types of properties for which BLM may determine ineligibility without seeking SHPO agreement. Eligibility determinations regarding possible traditional cultural properties will continue to require SHPO agreement and consultation with tribes.
(11) agreement as to types of undertakings and classes of affected properties that will trigger case-by-case review, including all undertakings that will have an adverse effect on historic properties, as well as any development of alternative procedures such as project-specific PAs, and how this review will proceed, consistent with Component 4 above;
(12) manner in which the BLM will ensure that appropriate professional expertise will be obtained or made available for specific types of undertakings or historic properties;
(13) provisions for resolving disagreements and amending or terminating the BLM- SHPO protocol;
(14) circumstances under which the BLM and/or SHPO may choose to operate under 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7 in place of the BLM-SHPO protocol;
(15) the substance and format of supplemental information to the BLM annual report that the state director will prepare in satisfaction of Component 10b of this agreement and the manner in which the report will be made available to affected Indian tribes and the public via the state BLM website. Supplemental information shall include information on BLM actions relative to undertakings and classes of affected properties that did not trigger case-by-case review; and
(16) training of a new manager or archaeologist with Section 106 responsibilities in a state that operates under this PA within 90 days of his or her report date in the procedures outlined in the PA and appropriate BLM-SHPO protocol.
c. BLM-Tribal Relations
BLM shall consult with Indian tribes on individual undertakings in the context of an ongoing government-to-government relationship sustained through regular periodic meetings supplemented by additional undertaking-specific consultation. Within 12 months following execution of this agreement, each state director will have begun contacting Indian tribes that are affected by BLM undertakings within his or her jurisdiction on a regular basis for the purpose of initiating a discussion about ways in which BLM and each Indian tribe can foster better communication. This discussion between the appropriate BLM and tribal representatives is an opportunity to establish effective methods for meeting tribal consultation requirements regarding identification and evaluation of historic properties, including traditional cultural properties, and for the resolution of adverse effects of undertakings. This process should be carried out in coordination with other state directors, as appropriate, and should seek to:
(1)identify geographic areas, types of historic properties, and undertakings of concern to Indian tribes;
(2) identify confidentiality issues;
(3) answer questions on the existing BLM-SHPO protocol;
(4) provide a tribal point of contact for the state office and each district and field office within his or her jurisdiction;
(5) develop a process for providing information and schedules of pending actions, including land exchanges, permits, and approvals on a regular basis; and
(6) offer Indian tribes the opportunity to establish a formal ongoing relationship through an agreement for conducting the consultation required under the NHPA Section 106 within the framework of the BLM’s government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes and other authorities.
d. The state director, will seek, as appropriate, the active participation of SHPOs, Indian tribes, and the interested public in BLM land-use planning and associated resource management activities consistent with section 202 of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. § 1712, and implementing regulations at 43 CFR 1610.2. This participation will be sought so that historic preservation considerations may influence large-scale decisions and inform the analysis of cumulative effects of more routine decisions, before the BLM makes key commitments and its management options are limited.
e. If deemed helpful and appropriate by the Indian tribe and the BLM, the BLM will seek to establish agreements and/or other formalized working arrangements with Indian tribes, relative to identifying undertakings, identifying properties, evaluating properties, determining effects, and protecting historic properties. All existing project and special purpose agreements with Indian tribes will function normally according to their terms.
f. When potentially relevant to the purposes and terms of this agreement, the BLM FPO will forward to the ACHP and the NCSHPO, in a manner that allows for consultation at their request, information concerning the following:
(1) major policy initiatives;
(2) proposals for new BLM regulations;
(3) proposals for organizational change potentially affecting relationships addressed in this agreement;
(4) the Administration’s budget proposal for BLM historic preservation activities, following its submittal to Congress;
(5) relevant training opportunities; and
(6) long range planning and regional planning schedules.
7. BLM Staff Training Program
The BLM will maintain an internal training program to: (a) instruct BLM line managers and cultural heritage specialists on the policies underlying and embodied in this agreement, including tribal consultation and state specific BLM-SHPO protocol implementation; and
(b) enhance skills and knowledge of other BLM personnel involved with “Heritage Resource Management” activities, including land use planning and resource management staffs. In cooperation with the ACHP and NCSHPO, the BLM may identify partners, as appropriate, to assist in developing training programs. The BLM may seek the active participation of Indian tribes and individual SHPOs in training sessions.
8. Professional Development
a. The DPOs, in consultation with supervising line managers and cultural heritage specialists in their state, will document each district and field office’s preservation professional staffing capabilities in their annual report to the SHPO. Documentation will include any recommended limitations on the nature and extent of authorized functions. Where a field manager’s immediate staff does not possess the necessary qualifications to perform specialized preservation functions (e.g., historical architecture, historical landscape architecture, ethnography), the field manager will seek specialized expertise from outside the immediate staff.
b. The DPOs may request that the Preservation Board assist the supervising line manager and the cultural heritage specialist in assessing the manager’s needs for special skills not presently available on the immediate staff, and the specialist’s opportunities for professional development and career enhancement through training, details, part-time graduate education, and other means.
9. District or Field Office Certification and Decertification
a. The Preservation Board, in coordination with the appropriate DPO, SHPO, and the ACHP, and with consideration of tribal comments, may choose to review the status of a district or field office’s certification to employ BLM-SHPO protocols developed pursuant to this agreement; or the district or field manager, the state director, the ACHP, or the SHPO, may request that the Preservation Board initiate a review of a district or field office’s certification.
b. If a review is being conducted, the FPO, appropriate DPO(s), SHPO(s), the ACHP, and the Preservation Board will participate in the review, and the BLM may consider including other legitimate affected parties as participants in the review, as appropriate.
(1) If a district or field office is found not to have maintained the basis for its certification (e.g., lacks the professional capability needed to carry out these policies and procedures, or is proceeding in contravention of its BLM-SHPO protocol or BLM internal guidance), and the office’s manager has not voluntarily suspended participation under this agreement, the Preservation Board will recommend that the state director decertify the district or field office. If a suspended or decertified district or field office is found to have restored the basis for certification, the Preservation Board will recommend that the state director recertify the district or field office.
(2) A state director may ask the Director to review the Preservation Board’s decertification recommendation, in which case the Director may request the ACHP’s participation in the review.
(3) The Preservation Board will notify the appropriate SHPO(s), the ACHP, and the review requestor, of the findings of the review, including any recommended changes to the certification status of the office.
(4) When a district or field office is suspended or decertified, the district or field manager will follow the procedures of 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7, or 36 CFR 800.8(c), or an applicable program alternative under 36 CFR 800.14, to comply with Section 106.
c. If the Preservation Board receives a request to perform a review and decides not to conduct the review, it will provide a response to the requester, including the rationale for its decision.
10. Accountability Measures
a. It will be the Preservation Board’s duty in accordance with Component 3.c and 3.d above to foster consistency and conformity with BLM policies and procedures. Where problems with implementation are found, it will be the Preservation Board’s duty to move promptly toward effecting correction of the problems, in coordination with the individual DPO.
b. Each state director will prepare an annual report in consultation with the appropriate SHPO(s), outlining the preservation activities conducted under this agreement. The annual report will be consistent with the BLM’s annual Washington Office reporting requirements, and will include supplemental information agreed upon by the BLM and SHPO. The state reports will be made available to the public via the BLM state web sites, and BLM will notify the ACHP of their availability via email.
c. Annually, each state director that maintains a BLM-SHPO protocol pursuant to this agreement or his/her designee will meet with the SHPO to review the implementation of that BLM-SHPO protocol.
d. The Preservation Board or the BLM Washington Office, in consultation with the ACHP and SHPOs, may select one or more certified state, district, or field offices for a detailed field review of this agreement’s implementation. The FPO and the appropriate DPO(s), SHPO(s), and the ACHP will participate in the review and may include other parties as appropriate. Findings and recommendations based on this field review will be provided to the participants, the Director, the state director, and the Preservation Board for appropriate action.
e. The FPO and DPOs will prepare responses to public inquiries for the signature of the Director or a state director regarding inquiries about the BLM’s exercise of its authorities and responsibilities under this agreement, such as the identification, evaluation, and management of resources. Responses will include establishing the facts of the situation and, where needed, recommendations to the Director or state director for corrections or revisions in a practice or procedure.
f. Each meeting of the Preservation Board will be documented by a report. The Preservation Board will post a copy of each report on the national BLM web site.
11. Reviewing and Changing the Agreement
a. The signatories to this agreement may agree to revise or amend it at any time. Changes that would affect the opportunity for public participation or tribal consultation will be subject to public notice and tribal consultation. An amendment will go into effect when signed by all the signatories.
b. Should any signatory to this agreement object to any matter related to its implementation, the signatories will meet to attempt to resolve the objection. If a signatory determines that such objection cannot be resolved, BLM will:
1. Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including the BLM’s proposed resolution, to the other signatories. The signatories shall provide BLM with their response to the BLM’s proposed resolution of the objection within thirty (30) days of receiving adequate documentation. Prior to reaching a final decision on the dispute, BLM shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely advice or comments regarding the dispute from the signatories, and provide them with a copy of this written response. BLM will then proceed according to its final decision.
2. If the signatories do not provide their advice regarding the dispute within the thirty (30) day time period, BLM may make a final decision on the dispute and proceed accordingly. Prior to reaching such a final decision, BLM shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the signatories to the agreement, and provide them with a copy of such written response.
3. BLM 's responsibility to carry out all other actions subject to the terms of this agreement that are not the subject of the dispute remain unchanged.
c. Any signatory to this agreement may terminate it by providing 90 days notice to the other signatory, provided that the signatory will meet during the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the event of termination, all state-specific BLM-SHPO protocols developed under the authority of this agreement and/or the 1997 PA will be terminated, and the BLM will comply with Section 106 through the process in 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7, or 36 CFR 800.8(c), or an applicable program alternative under 36 CFR 800.14.
d. Within 1 year of the execution of this agreement and every 2 years thereafter, the signatories to this agreement will meet to review its implementation.
e. Specific references to 36 CFR Part 800 are to the regulations that became effective on August 5, 2004. Generic references to 36 CFR Part 800 in this agreement may be read in the future as referencing the version that is in effect at the time of reading.
f. This agreement will be in effect for a period of 10 years from the date of execution, with an option for renewal in 2-year increments with agreement of its signatories.
The signatures below represent the affirmation of the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers that successful execution of the Components of this agreement will satisfy the BLM’s obligations under Section 106 and serve as partial satisfaction of the BLM’s obligations under Sections 110(f) and 111(a) of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Robert V. Abbey Date
Director, Bureau of Land Management
John M. Fowler Date
Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Ruth Pierpont Date
President, National Conference of State Historic