Welcome to the Woodstock - Preservation Archives
Dedicated to the Historic Preservation of the Site of the 1969 Woodstock Festival
THE WOODSTOCK SITE
Hurd & West Shore Rds
Protecting Historic Properties
|WHAT IS SECTION 106 REVIEW?
(Excerpt from ACHP - A Citizen's Guide to Section 106 Review)
In the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Congress established a comprehensive program to preserve the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation as a living part of community life. Section 106 Review is crucial to that program, because it requires consideration of historic preservation in the multitude of Federal actions that take place nationwide. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties and provide the Council an opportunity to comment on Federal projects prior to implementation.
In order to be considered during Section 106 Review, a property must either be already listed on the National Register or be eligible for listing.
Because of the Section 106 Review, Federal agencies must assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions, and be publicly accountable for their decisions.
By law, we have a voice when Federal actions will affect properties that qualify for the National Register of Historic Places. Throughout the Section 106 process, the federal government must consider the views of the public, and we, as citizens, can use this as an important tool to influence those Federal decisions. It gives us an opportunity to alert the Federal Government to the properties we value, how these Federal projects will affect them, and to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce harm to historic properties.
Protecting Historic Properties
ACHP - A Citizen's Guide to Section 106 Review
Federal Planning and Historic Places - The Section 106 Process
By: Thomas F. King
Section 106 is an obscure law, and applies only if the Federal government is involved. This is the key element, and the first step in this process. It must be determined if the Federal government is involved, and which federal agency is responsible for a grant, or for carrying out the project.
FUNDING FOR THE BETHEL PERFORMING ARTS CENTER
With the support of NY Gov. George Pataki, Sen. John Bonacic, the late Jacob Gunther, the Bethel Performing Arts Center was awarded $15 million in State funding*, and in February 2002, Congressman Maurice Hinchey announced that the appropriation of $180,000 in Federal funding for this project had passed the House.
Maurice Hinchey - Press Release
(15 Feb 2003)
"Projects To Share 18.3 Mil"
(Article: Times-Herald Record, 15 Feb 2003)
THE BETHEL PERFORMING ARTS CENTER and THE SECTION 106 REVIEW PROCESS
Having established that the Federal government was involved in this project, it was now important to identify which Federal agency was responsible for overseeing this grant, as that agency would also be responsible for initiating a Section 106 Review.
Correspondence with Congressman Hinchey's Office
(Request 5 Mar 2003 - Response 21 Mar 2003)
With federal involvement, a Section 106 Review was mandate. NYSHPO was contacted regarding our interest in being accepted into the review process as a consulting party. "Consulting party status" would entitle us to share our views, ideas, and consider possible solutions together with the Federal agency. Initial letters of request were forwarded to HUD.
Letters of Request
(24 June 2003)
Federal agencies must review the project plans and conclude the Section 106 process prior to any permits being issued, or federal funds being dispersed. They must not take any action that would preclude any alternatives that might avoid or minimize harm to historic properties before the process is completed.
On 10 February, 2004, The Gerry Foundation presented the Bethel Woods Development Plan Narrative to the Bethel Planning Board, and subsequently to the State.
With the Woodstock site being eligible for the National Register, the knowledge of federal involvement, and the submission of the project plans to the State, the criteria for a Section 106 Review was established.
"THE 1969 WOODSTOCK FESTIVAL SITE - A CAUSE FOR PRESERVATION"
With a Section 106 Review pending, we prepared to make our interests and concerns known, and provide documentation to support our views. Our efforts now focused on "The 1969 Woodstock Festival Site - A Cause for Preservation." Initially submitted to the Bethel Planning Board, this document was our attempt to take into account all of the best practices for historic preservation as they pertained to the Woodstock festival bowl and adjoining plateau. We strived to make a clear, concise argument for the mitigation of the plans for Phase 1 of the Bethel Center for the Arts, and provide rationale for the relocation of the Core Buildings Complex (CBC) and Farmer’s Market shelters to property within the nearby vicinity, yet off of the defined historic Woodstock festival property.
It was our desire that those entrusted with the protection of culturally and historically significant properties would see the need to mitigate the current Gerry Foundation plans, prior to any permanent damage occurring to the site. The document represents the preservationist position in the government arena and we requested that it be included within a Section 106 Review.
PRESERVATION SUPPORT DOCUMENT
(.PDF Files are fairly large and may take a few minutes to download)
Authored By: Brad Littleproud, Joanne Hague, Michael W. Doyle Ph.D.
Letter to Ms. Ruth L. Pierpont, NYSHPO
(16 Apr 2004)
Letter from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(10 June 2004)
"The 1969 Woodstock Site: A Long Time Gone"
(Article: Preservation League of NY State, Issue 116, Summer 2004)
*As required, the Bethel Woods project was reviewed under Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Act of 1980. Public input was not solicited. It was concluded that the development of Bethel Woods would pose "no adverse effect" to the historic property, and the State granted its approval for this project in June 2004..
Please note that: "No adverse effect" does not understate "No effect"
Note: On 21 June 2004, after pursuing the initiation of the review process, we received confirmation from Rep. Hinchey's office and from the NY State Historic Preservation office, that the Gerry Foundation had not applied for any federal funding/support for the Bethel Woods project. The absence of this Federal involvement, negated the Section 106 Review process.
E-Mail Notification from Hinchey's Office
(21 June 2004)
WITH THE GERRY FOUNDATIONS DECISION TO DECLINE FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT AND AVIOD A SCETION 106 REVIEW, ALL LEGAL AVENUES OF PRESERVATION, AT THE LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL LEVEL WERE EXHAUSTED. BETHEL WOODS SECURED THE STATE'S APPROVAL IN JUNE 2004, AND DEVELOPMENT COMMENCED TWO WEEKS LATER.
"Construction Begins on Bethel Woods"
(Article: Times Herald- Record, 29 June 2004)
(Public Letter: Woodstock Preservationists, 8 July 2004)
"Ceremony Celebrates Groundbreaking At Woodstock Site"
(Article: Associated Press, 19 July 2004)
ACHP - Official Website
The Preservation League of NY State
US Dept of Justice - Freedom of Information Act