“….like an aging Protestant to the book of Proverbs”— that’s why I read you, Spencer. Of course the substantive material is grist for the thinking mill, but your truly brilliant repartee puts a giggle in my old heart! Write on!
I share your ambivalence, but I agree it's high time for the CFR to be reined in. Here in the CRM world, I've noticed a growing hostility towards Section 106. Clients commonly complain about more stringent practices regarding tribal consultation and TCPs, viewsheds, and the somewhat cavalier way that archaeologists and historians have recommended resources eligible for the NRHP. My worry is that maintaining (and growing) the CFR in relation to cultural resources will create wide public disapproval, which could really cripple our work in the long run. My hope is that more judicial/legislative participation will mirror recent battles over wetland delineation/jurisdictional waters. In a perfect world, I'd want two separate preservation laws: one for historic structures and one for archaeological remains. A property could be protected under one or both, but the point would be to have more appropriate eligibility criteria and targeted regulations for each resource type.
Also, dude, you seen in the news how a bunch of museums are removing or covering native displays in response to the new rules? Crazy.
Great perspective from someone directly influenced by this stuff. I totally agree that the standard practices around TCPs and viewsheds have really gone off the rails in the past few years. Those resources seem to be used a cudgel to inhibit development rather than being identified in good faith. Now that TCPs are being given Smithsonian numbers on some projects, I think it's only a matter of time before they conflict in a real way with a project that must go through. In my experience, most TCPs are things that archaeologists wouldn't typically document, like neat rocks on the tops of hills, and I feel like it's queuing us up for an easy sound bite in the legislature. "The archaeologists are saying these natural rocks need to be protected and now your energy bills are higher." This process only works when all parties are operating in good faith, and I don't see the Federal archaeologists that decide these policies making an effort to demonstrate that.
“….like an aging Protestant to the book of Proverbs”— that’s why I read you, Spencer. Of course the substantive material is grist for the thinking mill, but your truly brilliant repartee puts a giggle in my old heart! Write on!
I figured you'd appreciate the section on the Carter exemption. haha
Living and dying with the choices I’ve made!
I share your ambivalence, but I agree it's high time for the CFR to be reined in. Here in the CRM world, I've noticed a growing hostility towards Section 106. Clients commonly complain about more stringent practices regarding tribal consultation and TCPs, viewsheds, and the somewhat cavalier way that archaeologists and historians have recommended resources eligible for the NRHP. My worry is that maintaining (and growing) the CFR in relation to cultural resources will create wide public disapproval, which could really cripple our work in the long run. My hope is that more judicial/legislative participation will mirror recent battles over wetland delineation/jurisdictional waters. In a perfect world, I'd want two separate preservation laws: one for historic structures and one for archaeological remains. A property could be protected under one or both, but the point would be to have more appropriate eligibility criteria and targeted regulations for each resource type.
Also, dude, you seen in the news how a bunch of museums are removing or covering native displays in response to the new rules? Crazy.
Great perspective from someone directly influenced by this stuff. I totally agree that the standard practices around TCPs and viewsheds have really gone off the rails in the past few years. Those resources seem to be used a cudgel to inhibit development rather than being identified in good faith. Now that TCPs are being given Smithsonian numbers on some projects, I think it's only a matter of time before they conflict in a real way with a project that must go through. In my experience, most TCPs are things that archaeologists wouldn't typically document, like neat rocks on the tops of hills, and I feel like it's queuing us up for an easy sound bite in the legislature. "The archaeologists are saying these natural rocks need to be protected and now your energy bills are higher." This process only works when all parties are operating in good faith, and I don't see the Federal archaeologists that decide these policies making an effort to demonstrate that.