Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson, SHPO Office of Historic Preservation California Department of Parks & Recreation Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 December 15, 2005 Re: National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Section 106 review of case file DOE941104A and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the Demolition of the Bevatron Building at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Alameda County, CA, dated October 1997. Dear Officer Donaldson, More than a week ago, your office was contacted concerning the ongoing NHPA Section 106 review of case file DOE941104A and the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the Demolition of the Bevatron Building at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Berkeley, Alameda County. We are writing this letter to formally file a complaint with your office over the NHPA Section 106 review, of the above referenced case file, based on the following concerns: • Prior to 1997 the State Office of Historic Preservation was involved with the Department of Energy (DOE) regarding the Demolition of the Bevatron Building at the LBNL, but neither DOE or your office considered that there might be other interested parties “likely to have knowledge of or concerns about” the Bevatron that should have been included into the NHPA 106 process as consulting parties, prior to the finalization of the MOA 1997. • Section 106 of the NHPA specifically ensures that historic preservation concerns are taken into consideration as part of the Federal planning process, i.e. Federal agencies must consult with the respective State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in “seeking information from parties likely to have knowledge of or concerns about the area”. You should be aware that prior to the March 15, 2005 Notice of Preparation (NOP) by LBNL, for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the demolition of Building 51 and Bevatron, there had been no public involvement related to this historic structure. • The MOA was ratified in 1997 by DOE and the State Historic Preservation Officer, without any public notice or citizen participation by known concerned parties in Berkeley such as the City’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, numerous neighborhood and environmental groups, city commissions and other stakeholders that have a strong vested interest in activities at LBNL located in the historic Strawberry Creek Watershed, above the UC Berkeley central campus, in the middle of a residential neighborhood, and next to the Panoramic Hill Federal Historic District. • For more than a decade DOE/LBNL have conducted many public comment processes, such as the above mentioned circulation of the DEIR, and involved the city’s stakeholders, as required by law. Yet, at no time during the last 8 years has the MOA between the state and DOE to demolish the Bevatron been make public to any of these above mentioned, interested parties. This failure to notice the public of the NHPA Section 106 process is deceptive and illegal to the Federal Historic Preservation Process and our community. ACHP Policy Statement reads in part, “Section 106 review and NEPA are both intended to be used as decision-making processes. All too often, however, managers view these procedures as a method for seeking approval for a planning direction rather than a mechanism for formulating one. The consultation process breaks down quickly when decisions have been resolved in favor of a particular course of action prior to conducting a more comprehensive discussion.” By allowing DOE to continue with the current MOA will only perpetuate this long-standing injustice. The NHPA Section 106 process has not been completed, therefore, we ask that your office intervene on our behalf and set aside the MOA. Further, we request that a new MOA be drafted with public participation by the above-mentioned interested parties. DOE should not be rewarded for its deceptive practice and direct violation of federal law. Sincerely, L A Wood & Pamela Sihvola, Berkeley cc: Congresswoman Barbara Lee