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,
Sincerely,
L A Wood
Berkeley Citizen
Pamela Sihvola
Committee To Minimize Toxic Waste
cc: Congresswoman Barbara Lee
Mr. Don Klima, Director
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 809
Washington, D.C. 20004
March 19, 2006
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 and Building 51 at the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Berkeley, Alameda County, California, dated October
1997.
Dear Director Klima,
On March 17, 2006 we contacted your office expressing concern over the
NHPA Section 106 process regarding the project referenced above. We
now write to officially request that your office intervene on our behalf
and investigate this urgent matter.
After speaking with the Office of Historic Preservation, California
we forwarded a letter dated December 15, 2005 to the preservation officer
Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson. (See attachment 1.) In that correspondence
we raised issue with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the fact
that the Berkeley public was not included in the NHPA 106 process as
consulting parties, prior to the finalization of the MOA in 1997. It
appears also that your office never signed the 1997 MOA. (See attachment
2.)
Be advised that to date, Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson, SHPO, has not
responded to our letter. Moreover, DOE/LBNL has just released the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation (Draft Environmental Assessment,
EA) for the above referenced project that we believe is incomplete.
Note, that the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) division of
the National Park Service has not yet accepted the required addendum
to the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) report prepared for
the Bevatron and Building 51. (p. 53) LBNL/DOE have refused to allow
public access to this addendum, as well.
Again, we request your intervention in this matter because of the lack
of response by Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson and the Office of Historic
Preservation. It is clear that the EA has not adequately addressed the
Section 106 cultural resource issues of historical significance of the
Bevatron. A full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be required
of the project.
Finally, the NHPA Section 106 process has not been completed so we ask
that a new MOA be drafted with public participation.
Sincerely,
L A Wood
Berkeley Citizen
Pamela Sihvola
Committee To Minimize Toxic Waste
cc: Congresswoman Barbara Lee
Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson, SHPO
F. J. Gofling, Chief Historian, Federal Preservation Officer, Department
of Energy