Suzanne Derrick Technical Director – Cultural Resources FCC Section 106 Process and the Archeology of Tower Siting Panelist Presentation May 4, 2016.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Advertisements

The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office & 106 Reviews
W HAT H APPENS TO A C ULTURAL R EPORT O NCE IT IS S ENT TO BFO?
Environmental Compliance Negotiating our way through the process…
National Register Webinar August 29, 2012 Traditional Cultural Properties and Native American Landscapes Please call: Passcode: E.
Program Alternatives under 36 CFR Part 800 Dave Berwick Army Affairs Coordinator Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Geothermal Projects and Indian Tribes: Dealing with Cultural Resources Issues Michael P. O’Connell Stoel Rives LLP O R.
Section 106, Section 4(f) and You!: The Role of Consulting Parties in Transportation Projects Kevin Mock, Historic Preservation Specialist Pennsylvania.
Introduction to Historical Resources and Section 106 Division of Historical Resources (DHR) NH Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation.
1 Air Quality Impact Analysis and Other PSD Requirements Donald Law U.S. EPA Region 8.
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT of 1966 as amended Garry J. Cantley Regional Archeologist Bureau of Indian Affairs.
IDENTIFYING & EVALUATING HISTORIC PROPERTIES NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES –CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION HISTORIC.
THE FOUR STEP SECTION 106 PROCESS: STEP TWO TENNESSEE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE SECTION All reproduction rights reserved.
NHPA, Section 106, and NEPA Highlights and Misconceptions.
Federal Preservation Activities: Part 1. What did With Heritage So Rich (1965) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 provide to administer.
A BEGINNERS GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE SECTION 106 REVIEW PROCESS TENNESSEE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE: REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE SECTION.
Sacred Sites. Documentation Documentation: Forest Supervisor or Ranger District Offices may document Sacred site (s) information in a variety of ways.
THE FOUR STEP SECTION 106 PROCESS: AN INTRODUCTION TENNESSEE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE SECTION All reproduction rights reserved.
COSCDA Workshop Renovation, Reconstruction and Renewal of Historic Properties and Neighborhoods Section 106 and Programmatic Agreements Overview.
Monroe Executed Programmatic Agreement The Army’s Responsibilities Include: Identify Significant Viewsheds (initiated)-18 Months =Oct 2010 Cultural Landscape.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ____________________ Review and Compliance for CDBG/CHIP Program Projects.
The KwaZulu-Natal Planning and Development Act APPLICATION PROCESS Schedule 1.
Mitigation in the Section 106 Process Dave Berwick Army Program Manager Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
L O N G B E A C H, C A. Dean McMath Regional Environmental Programs Manager FAA – Southwest Region NEPA Essentials Selected Special.
Procedures and Processes Phase II: Evaluation CRM Phases I-III This presentation uses materials taken from Ricardo Elia’s Cultural Resources Archaeology.
1 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CULTURAL RESOURCES LAWS AND REGULATIONS CH 5 CH 5 HO # 13, 13a, 13b
Positive Train Control Infrastructure: Section 106 Review Process under the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s May 2014 Program Comment For More.
Nadine Peterson Preservation Planner NH Division of Historical Resources Lynne E. Monroe Preservation Company Christopher W. Closs Christopher W. Closs.
Streamlined Environmental Requirements for Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and Small Cells.
Integrating Other Laws into BLM Planning. Objectives Integrate legal requirements into the planning process. Discuss laws with review and consultation.
Monitoring and 638 Contract Close-out. Contract Monitoring and Close-out After Award ▫ Meet with Tribe to discuss the Agreement  Include Monitoring Plan.
3D Technology and the Section 106 Process Matt Diederich Archaeologist Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Oregon Heritage Programs Division.
REEVALUATION: BEST PRACTICES M-DCPS EXCEPTIONAL STUDENT EDUCATION CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN BEESS 037.
By Rachel Coleman.  “ The head of any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking.
The Extent of BLM Responsibility over Actions Occurring on Non-Federal Lands: Cultural Resources.
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project (FERC No. 2079) Cultural Technical Working Group Meeting November 18, 2008.
Historical Resources SURVEY SAVVY Marie Nelson State Historian II OHP-Survey/CLG Coordinator Sep 07 – Chico.
Title V, Preliminary Completeness Review. What do I need to do?  I need to find out if the application contains the required information.  Initial Title.
Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division 1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Review and Compliance for CDBG/CHIP.
Categorical Exclusion Training Class
Historic Preservation Memoranda of Agreement. What is an MOA? As part of the Section 106 review process, it is an agreement among an agency official,
1 US EPA Straw Proposals for Modifying the 12/2005 draft Policy Statement Jim Hanlon, Director Office of Wastewater Management, OW Expanded Steering Committee.
South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office and the Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands July 24, 2013 National Grasslands Visitor Center.
Cultural Resources office — St. Louis Planning & Urban Design Agency an introduction.
Director’s Order 12 contains information concerning review of other agency proposals.
Federal Aviation Administration ARP SOP No SOP for CATEX Determinations Effective Date: Oct. 01, 2014 February 2016.
Railroad Towers ISSUES AND UPDATES FOR TOWERS PROPOSED IN RAILROAD RIGHTS OF WAY.
Integration of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) NEPA and NHPA A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and.
FCC’s NEPA Process Overview of NEPA Overview of NEPA Overview of FCC’s NEPA rules and procedures Overview of FCC’s NEPA rules and procedures Nuts and bolts.
The National Register. The National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places is authorized by Section 101 (a)(1)(A)of the.
Valuing Wealden’s heritage. National Planning Policy Framework Sets out the planning policies for England and how these are to be applied. “The purpose.
Phillipa Silcock Using and discharging conditions.
Welcome to the Public Comment Hearing on the Proposed Regulatory Update to the California Environmental Quality Act AB 52, Gatto (2014) Heather Baugh Assistant.
Anth January 2012.
Planning & Community Development Department 180 South Euclid Avenue Demolition of Existing Structure Consolidated Design Review (Appeal) City Council June.
National Treasures: Brownfields and the National Historic Preservation Act Brownfields 2006 Boston, MA.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
101 New London Road Newark, Delaware
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project FERC Project No February 26, 2008.
UK Legal Requirement for Notification of Serious Breaches of Good Clinical Practice or The Trial Protocol John Poland, PhD Senior Director, Regulatory.
Determination of Eligibility 5/4/16
Pedestrian Survey.
Monte Mills Alexander Blewett III School of Law University of Montana
Cultural Resources Categorical Exclusion Training Class – Presented by the Office of Environmental Services.
Navigating the SHPD Review Process
The Role of the SHPO John Pouley, Assistant State Archaeologist
Protecting What We Love Building What We Need – The “H” Factor
National Historic Preservation Act
National Historic Preservation Act
National Historic Preservation Act
Presentation transcript:

Suzanne Derrick Technical Director – Cultural Resources FCC Section 106 Process and the Archeology of Tower Siting Panelist Presentation May 4, 2016

The NPAs - “Streamlining” and “Certainty” “Streamlining”  The use of the FCC Form 620 & 621 makes the submissions to every state similar  Defines the APEs  Limits the level of survey required in the APE –Visual Effect “Certainty”  Provides a “clock” for the consultation process  Provides a mechanism for tribal consultation  Provides a method to conclude consultation even if the SHPO is non-responsive For further information visit: But even with the FCC’s expectations being defined in the 2004 NPA, there are still significant differences in what the SHPOs and Tribes request

2004 NPA GuidanceOther’s Expectations Identification of Historic Properties APE-VE: Section VI.D.1.a of the 2004 NPA - Research SHPO’s files or designated repositories to identify NR- Listed, NR-eligible (DOE/SHPO Opinion), properties SHPO certifies are in the process of being listed or in the Inventory and already determined eligible. APE-DE: Conduct Research and then Field Survey (if necessary) to identify whether archaeological properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places exist Some SHPOs request that consultants treat all properties in their inventories as “historic properties” Consultants are asked to photograph all properties > 50 years of age in the APE- VE, so the SHPO can id which may be eligible and might be affected. Consultants are asked to survey all properties >50 yrs in the APE-VE and make determinations of eligibility.

2004 NPA GuidanceOther’s Expectations Field Survey in the APE-DE Section VI.D.2.a of the 2004 NPA states “In addition to the properties identified pursuant to Section VI.D.1, Applicants shall make a reasonable good faith effort to identify other above ground and archeological Historic Properties, including buildings, structures, and historic districts, that lie within the APE for direct effects. Such reasonable and good faith efforts may include a Field Survey where appropriate.” Some SHPOs require the completion of state-specific survey forms to document the eligibility determination Completion of the state-specific forms can require NR-nomination levels of work SHPOs and Tribes do not always agree on the level of archeological survey required to determine whether archeological properties exist in the APE- DE. Some SHPOs consider entire parcel (or even historic parcel boundaries) to = APE-DE

2004 NPA GuidanceOther’s Expectations Field Survey in the APE-VE Section VI.D.1.a of the 2004 NPA states the following relative to the identification of historic properties in the APE-VE: “Applicants are not required to undertake a Field Survey or other measures other than reviewing these records in order to identify Historic Properties” Some SHPOs and/or Consulting parties request identification survey of one or more properties >50 yrs in the APE-VE. Some SHPOs routinely request an expansion of the APE-VE.

2004 NPA GuidanceOther’s Expectations Assessment of Effects Per Section VI.E of the 2004 NPA: Criteria of Adverse Effect are applied “An Undertaking will have a visual adverse effect on a Historic Property if the visual effect from the Facility will noticeably diminish the integrity of one or more of the characteristics qualifying the property for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register. Construction of a Facility will not cause a visual adverse effect except where visual setting or visual elements are character-defining features of eligibility of a Historic Property located within the APE.” Some SHPOs do not consider intervening distance, tree cover or topography to have a significant role in softening the visual impact Some SHPOs believe the facility’s presence anywhere in the viewshed will constitute an adverse effect. Some SHPOs only consider the effect to be from the historic property and others consider it to be from the viewer’s perspective when viewing the historic property.

2004 NPA GuidanceOther’s Expectations Qualifications Use of an SOI-qualified Architectural Historian/Historian is at applicant discretion unless an assessment of effects is required. SOI-qualified archeologists are required to make determinations of the level of effort required to identify and evaluate archeological resources. Use of professionals with regional experience helps with the identification of regional site types Some states require all levels of survey be conducted by permitted professionals (SOI-qual is not sufficient). Some states require permits only for later phases of archaeological survey. Some Tribes require specialized survey conducted by contractors approved by the tribes.

Case Study on Reasonable and Good Faith Effort Client proposed to install LTE antennas on existing colo >45 years of age, so SHPO was required Research identified subject property as being NR-Eligible (2001) Conditional No Adverse Effect and Painting Plan acknowledged by FCC were a result of a circa 2008 consultation Several installations were not consistent w/ painting plan

Case Study on Reasonable and Good Faith Effort (con’t) SHPO responded to LTE submission that a cumulative Adverse Effect has now occurred Consultant worked with Applicant to show compliance history and to re-design their installation to be consistent w/ painting plan, etc. Resulted in Conditional No Adverse Effect