ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
|
ILLINOIS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY |
|
The web site for Illinois General Assembly Information is: www.legis.state.il.us
A word search on terms such as "historic preservation", "Illinois Historic Preservation Agency", or
"cultural resources" will locate pending bills that apply to the state
historic preservation laws or cultural resource management in Illinois.
The site also provides information on the sponsors of each bill and its status
(e.g., is a bill in committee or up for a vote on the floor of the Senate or House of Representatives).
There is also information on how to contact your State Senator or Representative
if you want to contact them about a particular piece of legislation.
I will keep the membership advised as the schedule of bills becomes available. The federal web site is: http://thomas.loc.gov/ On the federal scene, something of interest concerns the potential changes
to Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Controversy has arisen
because there are those who feel that the laws are redundant, leading to
delays in transportation construction when compliance with both laws is met.
Both S. (Senate bill) 1072 and H.R. (House bill) 3550 have new provisions. S. 1072 contains a provision, authored by Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) and
the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and supported by the SAA and
ACRA, that would create a new process for reviewing transportation projects
without altering either Section 106 or Section 4(f). Under the provision, if
a project goes through a Section 106 review and consultation process and is
determined to either affect no historic properties or have no adverse effect
on historic properties, and the SHPO or THPO (Tribal Historic Preservation
Officer [not a concern in Illinois, although quite active throughout parts
of Indian Country]) (along with the ACHP, if it is participating) agree to
that finding in writing, then the project will be considered to have a "de
minimis" impact, and a Section 4(f)review will not be necessary. H.R. 3550 would allow projects that have completed a Section 106 review to
be exempt from having to undertake a Section 4(f) review if an agreement is
reached under the Section 106 process that the project will have no adverse
effect on historic properties. The Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation would be able to prevent such an exemption either on its own or
if a consulting party to the Section 106 review of the project petitioned
the ACHP to do so, and the ACHP decided to act on the petition. Unlike the
Senate bill's (S. 1072) provision, the House bill's language would apply
only to historic properties, not any of the other types of lands and areas
protected by the 4(f) standard, such as parks, recreation areas, and
wildlife and waterfowl refuges. In addition, the House bill does not set a
"de minimis" threshold for the exemption to take place, as in the Senate
bill. Congress has been busy trying to tie up loose ends on appropriations,
although they do not appear to have hit their October 8th date. The House
adjourned on October 9 and the Senate adjourned on October 12 so Members of
Congress could go home and do some last minute campaigning before the
election on November 2nd. Normally, during a presidential election year,
this would be the end of work until after New Years. However, many
appropriations bills have been left unresolved, so Congress will reconvene
on November 16. Many bills may be dependent upon who wins the White House
and whether there is any significant turn-over in Congressional membership.
If a lame duck situation occurs, there is no incentive for Members to cut
deals to maintain productive alliences in the 109th Congress next year.
This means that various agenda, including rewrites of federal regulations
(see below), that could be less favorable to Historic Preservation might be
pushed through before the new Members are sworn into office in January.
Recent announcements at the National Park Service will have profound affects
on archaeology. At a meeting of the National NAGPRA Review Committee, NPS
officials said that the Archaeology and Ethnography program will be split.
In addition, Park's NAGPRA functions will be moved to Denver. National
NAGPRA staff announced the imminent publication of draft regulations for
Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains. I will post links to these as I
find out more. Also, Mr. Tim McKeown was named Designated Federal Office
for the Review Committee, and Judge Sherry Hutt as head of the National
NAGPRA office.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wishes to revise its permitting process to
fulfill its requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and rewrite regulations to improve its consultation with
stakeholders regarding historic preservation issues. The Corps recently
issued an advanced notice of public rulemaking in the Federal Register to
gather comments, which are due by November 26, 2004.
For more information on the Corps proposals, see the Federal Register notice
at http://www.regulations.gov/AGCY_ARMYDEPARTMENT-ALL.cfm . To see the
Protection of Historic Properties Regulations, which the Corps refers to in
their proposed changes, click http://www.achp.gov/regs-rev04.pdf . For the
Corps' procedures to protect historic properties, go to
http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/33cfr325.htm#appendixC
. To write comments, follow the links in the Federal Register notice.
Federal Legislature: