The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (...

Commission Fri. on a draft nationwide agreement to streamline that process for communications facilities under Sec. 106 of the act. That provision requires federal agencies to consider the effects of an “undertaking,” including tower construction and expansion, on historic properties. A similar agreement reached in 2001 had focused on colocation on existing towers, while the draft covered new sites. The draft agreement spells out for state historic preservation officers and industry what is needed for compliance, included tower projects that meet certain criteria and would be excluded from routine review. The NCSHPO board in an ex parte filing last week told the FCC that it and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation shouldn’t assume that NCSHPO would sign the draft agreement. The conference reiterated its concerns on issues not addressed in the draft: (1) The area of potential effect, which covers a mandatory radius for towers, especially those taller than 1,000 ft. That provision would stipulate a geographic visual range, setting restrictions on the visual effects on a proposed tower. For example, the draft proposes a range of 1/2 mile for towers under 200 ft. NCSHPO said for towers higher than 1,000 ft., the area of potential effect should be determined by the applicant along with the state historic preservation officer. (2) Lack of notice to state historic preservation officers in the process, although local govts. are notified when companies build in exclusion zones. (3) Lack of an opt-out provision for individual SHPOs to pinpoint areas “of known or predicted historic properties to be removed from an exclusion zone.” Separately, the United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) said in a filing that it was working with the FCC on a joint memorandum of understanding and a related best practices document on Commission consultation with USET tribes on cellphone tower construction issues. USET said it had concerns that the exclusions in Sec. 106 review requirements in the draft “could not lawfully be applied to Indian tribes under the National Historic Preservation Act.” USET said it also discussed an exception to exclusion provisions proposed by the Navajo Nation. The Navajo Nation had proposed that no tower sites be excluded from tribal review and provided for confidential treatment of tribal review. A representative of the Navajo Nation previously voiced concern that part of the National Historic Preservation Act that applied to tribes hadn’t been fully taken into account in drafting the agreement.