Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) ACMP Conference Juneau, AK 2007.
Advertisements

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.
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT of 1966 as amended Garry J. Cantley Regional Archeologist Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Section 106 The reasons, the actions, the participants.
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Department of Defense Real Property Inventory (RPI) Initiative: Historic Status Data Element Brian Lione Department.
NHPA, Section 106, and NEPA Highlights and Misconceptions.
Environmental Review Todd Levine Architectural historian, environmental reviewer, Connecticut Freedom Trail coordinator, Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary.
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.
Driving Indiana’s Economic Growth. Management and Preservation of Indiana's Historic Bridges: A Programmatic Approach Thanks to Mead & Hunt & FHWA-IN.
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.
IRRPCC Meeting Albuquerque, NM November 8,  Clarification needed on applicability of these roads into the IRR Inventory  Assignment given to IRRPCC.
Environmental Planning CULTURAL RESOURCES CH 5 - HO # 13
Telecommunications Law 1. 2 Summary of Proposed Amendments To Scarsdale Zoning Code PRESENTED BY: Joseph Van Eaton.
Mitigation in the Section 106 Process Dave Berwick Army Program Manager Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
HIGHWAY/UTILITY PROGRAM OVERVIEW ROADWAY CONFERENCE APRIL 20, 2009.
L O N G B E A C H, C A. Dean McMath Regional Environmental Programs Manager FAA – Southwest Region NEPA Essentials Selected Special.
Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division Working Through The S106 Process FY 2015 CDBG Applicant Workshop December 4 th, 2014Meg.
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.
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.
U N I T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N A T I O N A L O C E A N I C A N D A T M O S P H E R I C A D M I N I S T R A T I O N State.
Environmental Review Process for Responsible Entities 24 CFR Part 58 NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION PROGRAM.
Section 106: Historic Preservation Review and Compliance as it relates to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 “How Can State Agencies Assist.
By Rachel Coleman.  “ The head of any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking.
1 Historic Preservation Webinar "Reporting Through PAGE and to PMC"
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,
Program Overview: HPF Grants to Tribes 1. National Historic Preservation Act Enacted in 1966 to Establish a Program for the Preservation of Historic Properties.
FTA Real Estate March 26, 2014 Christopher S. Van Wyk Director FTA Environmental Office.
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.
Suzanne Derrick Technical Director – Cultural Resources FCC Section 106 Process and the Archeology of Tower Siting Panelist Presentation May 4, 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.
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.
Anth January 2012.
FIRE PROTECTION CONTRACTS Workshop on Senate Bill 239 (Hertzberg) July 21, 2016 Nevada LAFCo – Presented by P. Scott Browne, Counsel.
Presenter’s Name June 17, 2003 Standard Treatment for Telecommunications Projects on Federal Land National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation.
National Treasures: Brownfields and the National Historic Preservation Act Brownfields 2006 Boston, MA.
The Wireless Infrastructure NPRM/NOI, WT Docket No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2017 AMENDMENT PROCESS and DOCKET
Eligible Services and Fiber Options for Service Providers
101 New London Road Newark, Delaware
An Alternative to Skyline Blight
Communications Protocols: The Good Faith Process
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 CITY COUNCIL MEETING RESCIND RESOLUTION NO AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE RULES GOVERNING.
MPO School Transportation Working Group
Monte Mills Alexander Blewett III School of Law University of Montana
FCC Proposed Preemption of Local Authority for 5G TECHNOLOGY
Creating a P.L Plan.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Midterm Review Public Archaeology.
Susan Barnes Vice-Chairman Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
May 8, 2018 Marion Werkheiser, Cultural Heritage Partners
Cultural Resources Categorical Exclusion Training Class – Presented by the Office of Environmental Services.
Alaska Roadless Rulemaking
National Historic Preservation Act
National Historic Preservation Act
The Role of the SHPO John Pouley, Assistant State Archaeologist
Protecting What We Love Building What We Need – The “H” Factor
Programmatic Approaches to Section 106 Compliance
National Historic Preservation Act
National Historic Preservation Act
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Presentation transcript:

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation SPACE FOR CAPTIONING (Delete this Text Box when Presentation is final) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Program Comment for Communications Projects on Federal Lands and Property

Presenters Charlene Dwin Vaughn, AICP Assistant Director Office of Federal Agency Programs Dr. Tom McCulloch Office of Federal Agency Program

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Independent Federal Agency Advises President and Congress on Historic Preservation Matters Oversees Section 106 Review Process

Section 106 of NHPA (the law) SPACE FOR CAPTIONING (Delete this Text Box when Presentation is final) Section 106 of NHPA (the law) Prior to taking action on an undertaking, Federal agencies must: Take into account the effects of it on historic properties; and Afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment

What is a program alternative? Section 800.14 of the ACHP’s regulations lays out a variety of methods available to federal agencies to meet their Section 106 obligations instead of the standard 106 process. Each alternative allows federal agencies to tailor the Section 106 process to meet their specific needs.

Program Alternatives [800.14] Alternate Procedures Exemptions Standard Treatments Program Comments Programmatic Agreements Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

What is a Program Comment? (e) Program comments. An agency official may request the Council to comment on a category of undertakings in lieu of conducting individual reviews under §§ 800.4 through 800.6. The Council may provide program comments at its own initiative.

What are the advantages of a program comment? A program comment allows a federal agency to comply with Section 106 in a single action for a class of undertakings rather than addressing each undertaking as a single action. This is advantageous to federal agencies that have repetitive management actions for a large inventory of similar types of historic properties or for those agencies that have programs that generate a large number of similar undertakings.

This Program Comment can be used by federal land and property managing agencies who must comply with the requirements of Section 106: when deploying communications activities on public lands and property; to fulfill their Section 106 responsibilities for the relevant undertakings by implementing the terms of this comment; the Program Comment also identifies certain undertakings that require no further Section 106 review under specified conditions.

Activities covered by Program Comment: Collocation of tower antennae; Above-ground connections on federal bldgs on federal land; New cables on existing poles/structures; Buried communications cable on federal lands; Tower replacement; New tower construction; Removal of obsolete equipment and towers

Advantages of using the Broadband Program Comment Expedites the review of broadband activities by: Defining the APE for certain undertakings to establish more consistent reviews on federal lands; Specifying the process for collocation on federal buildings and federal lands; Clarifying review and installation procedures for buried and aerial fiber optic lines.

How the Program Comment Works (1) Program Comments will be applied by Federal agency staff and applicants and licensees on Federal lands and properties. The Federal agency staff or must first review the FCC NPAs to see if they apply to the proposed undertaking. If they apply, along with other provisions in the Program Comment, the review can be expedited. When both federal land s and private land are involved, FCC’s Section 106 review can be carried out by the Federal LMA /PMA.

How the Program Comment Works (2) If the SHPO, THPO, Indian tribe, or NHO express concerns about the undertaking, the Federal agency staff will adhere to the standard Section 106 review. Likewise, if the undertaking involves NHL’s, National Monuments, National Historic Parks, or other properties involving these lands, the Federal agency must adhere to the standard Section 106 review. Determine the role of qualified professionals and other Federal agency staff. All reviews should be carried out in a timely manner.

Early Coordination (3) Early coordination is encouraged so that the Federal agencies can determine whether to use the Program Comment. Early coordination will also allow project proponent to avoid adverse effects on historic properties. Federal agencies and applicants can also discuss the feasibility of siting projects in previously disturbed areas.

Collocations (4) The Program Comment allows the Federal agencies the applicable exclusions in the FCC’s Collocation NPA. Many collocations require no further Section 106 review when certain conditions are met for towers, buildings, and structures. Collocations do not absolve Federal agencies and applicants and licensees from considering cumulative effects. Collocations can not be excluded from review when NHLs and State Historic Landmarks will be affected.

Above Ground Communication Connections (5) Federal LMA/PMA may use the NPA for collocations on federal buildings and non-federal buildings. Connections to buildings determined not eligible in the past 15 years do not require Section 106 review. Communications connections and collocations on listed and eligible historic properties when construction adheres to the SOI Standards.

Placement of Above-Ground Communications and Cable Lines on Existing Poles or Structures (6) No further Section 106 review required when: No new structures or polies need to be added; The structure or pole is not a historic property or contributing element in an historic district; When replacement structures or poles can be located in the same hole as the original; The replacement structures or poles are within an existing right-of-way that was surveyed; The design of replacements are consistent with the quality and appearance of the original; and The original is not a historic property and does not contribute to a historic district.

Installation of Buried Communications Cable on Federally Managed Lands (7) The APE for these activities will be the width of the construction ROW plus additional areas for staging and access. Installation and maintenance of new or replacement cable in previously disturbed areas or in existing communications or in previously disturbed soils does not require Section106 review. Installation or maintenance when there are no known historic properties within the APE. If the project is in the road, railroad, or utility ROW or nearby previously disturbed ROW, or the area from the ROW to the individual user includes a known archeological site.

Communications Tower Replacement (8) The APE for direct affects for a tower, compound and associated construction is guided by the NPA on tower siting. The APE for indirect visual effects is the geographic area in which the undertaking has the potential to introduce visual elements that diminish or alter the integrity. The APEs for visual effects is to tied to the area where the tower will be visible. Replacement of a tower within an existing facility boundary that was previously reviewed under Section 106 and effects were mitigated.

New Communications Tower Construction (9) The direct APE for a tower, compound, and associated construction is any property or portion thereof that would be physically altered or destroyed by the undertaking. The indirect APE for visual effects is the geographic area in which the undertaking has the potential to introduce visual elements that diminish or alter the integrity of the historic property, including landscapes, tied to the area from which the tower would be visible.

Removal of Obsolete Communications Equipment and Towers (10) Federal LMAs/PMAs may authorize the removal of obsolete existing communications equipment and towers and remove them with no further Section 106 review if it will not have an adverse effect on historic properties. Should a SHPO, THPO, Indian tribe or NHO object within 30 days after being notified, the Federal LMA/PMA should comply with the standard Section 106 review process.

Unanticipated Discoveries (11) Outlines how to address unidentified historic properties or unanticipated effects, including audible, atmospheric, and cumulative effects to historic properties during project implementation. Discoveries on Federal and tribal lands require compliance with Section 3 of NAGPRA and its implementing regulations. Develop a Discovery Plan as outlined in the Program Comment for inadvertent discoveries.

Reporting LMAs and PMAs individually will submit an annual report to the ACHP, NCSHPO, and NATHPO summarizing the number and type of projects reviewed under the Program Comment. LMAs and PMAs will summarize any agreements negotiated with THPOs and Indian tribes to use the Program Comment. ACHP will convene an annual meeting with Federal LMAs/PMAs, NCSHPO, NATHPO, National Trust and Industry to reexamine the Program Comment’s effectiveness.

Sunset Clause The Program Comment will expire on December 31, 2027. The Program Comment can be amended prior to that date to extend the period in which it is in effect.