The importance of partnerships to identify historic properties: While many federal agencies reported on their use of partnerships for resource protection and use, some also entered into agreements for inventory and survey purposes. The common thread in agency responses is the relationship between the federal agency and the SHPOs and, especially for land managing agencies, with Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) and federally recognized Indian tribes. Most agencies reporting also noted that they partnered with other federal agencies as the need arises, usually because they also owned or managed adjacent resources or had specific kinds of expertise. Highlights: ›› Bureau of Reclamation’s (Reclamation) Grand Coulee Power Office partnered with the Bonneville Power Administration, NPS’s Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, USACE, the Washington and Montana SHPOs, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Spokane Tribe of Indians, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation to survey 36,977 acres of federal lands for the Federal Columbia River Power System Cultural Resources Management program. ›› US International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) manages site forms and reports on several state databases (e.g., the South Coastal Information Center at San Diego State University, databases for the Arizona and New Mexico SHPOs, and the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory in Austin). ›› DHS notes that a 2017 SHPO survey found that FEMA was ranked No. 2 of all federal agencies in maintaining good working relationships with them. Given that the FRPP is currently not equipped to manage information on archaeological properties, the data collected for the NPS’ Federal Archeology Program’s Secretary’s Report to Congress would seem to have real potential as a tool to track and assess federal archaeology activities.This report is the only one that specifically collected data on the full range of federal agencies’ archaeological stewardship activities—site identification, protection, excavation, reporting, and curation—in a comparable format. Properties located but not evaluated: The ACHP continues to see the trend of cultural resources being located and identified but not evaluated to determine their NRHP significance. This approach often has unforeseen consequences for efficient property management. A major consequence is that these unevaluated properties become what has been termed “persistent resources” that stay on the agency’s books as a form of constant background noise, creating management inefficiencies until decisions are finally made about their significance. Agencies may unnecessarily spend time and scarce money to avoid such properties in their management of them or in future Section 106 reviews.
18 | IN A SPIRIT OF STEWARDSHIP: A REPORT ON FEDERAL HISTORIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 2018
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker