Programmatic Approaches to Section 106 Compliance

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Section 106
Advertisements

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) ACMP Conference Juneau, AK 2007.
Cultural Resources Categorical Exclusion Training Class.
Jennifer Horn, Preservation Pennsylvania. Who is Preservation Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania’s only private, non-profit, statewide organization dedicated.
Programmatic Approaches to Section 106 Compliance November 2, 2006 Jay Thomas Deputy Federal Preservation Officer Department of the Navy.
Civil Administrative Enforcement of Environmental Laws.
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.
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.
NHPA, Section 106, and NEPA Highlights and Misconceptions.
Environmental Review Todd Levine Architectural historian, environmental reviewer, Connecticut Freedom Trail coordinator, Washington- Rochambeau Revolutionary.
A BEGINNERS GUIDE TO SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE SECTION 106 REVIEW PROCESS TENNESSEE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE: REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE SECTION.
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy & Planning.
Sacred Sites. Documentation Documentation: Forest Supervisor or Ranger District Offices may document Sacred site (s) information in a variety of ways.
What If I Must Go Beyond a Preliminary Assessment? (the example of a USAID EA under Reg. 216) [DATE][SPEAKERS NAMES]
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Overview
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.
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Current and Planned Management Initiatives for DoD’s Historic Infrastructure Maureen Sullivan Federal Preservation.
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.
Is NEPA Preventing Energy Development? Bryan Hannegan, Ph.D. Associate Director – Energy and Transportation White House Council on Environmental Quality.
SAFETEA-LU Changes  Exemption of the Interstate System from Section 4(f) [Section 6007]  de minimis impacts to historic sites [Section 6009(a)]  de.
Cultural Resource Management in the Department of Defense September 29, 2005 Maureen Sullivan Federal Preservation Officer.
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.
Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division Working Through The S106 Process FY 2015 CDBG Applicant Workshop December 4 th, 2014Meg.
Annual COSCDA Training Conference CDBG Disaster Recovery: Renovation, Reconstruction, and Renewal of Historic Properties and Neighborhoods A. Elizabeth.
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.
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 “ Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking”
Integrating Other Laws into BLM Planning. Objectives Integrate legal requirements into the planning process. Discuss laws with review and consultation.
Gulana Hajiyeva Environmental Specialist World Bank Moscow Safeguards Training, May 30 – June 1, 2012.
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.
1 Implementing the Concepts Environment Pre-Conference Workshop TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference August 27, 2006 Michael Culp FHWA Office of Project.
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"
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
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,
South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office and the Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands July 24, 2013 National Grasslands Visitor Center.
Integration of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) NEPA and NHPA A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and.
EIAScreening6(Gajaseni, 2007)1 II. Scoping. EIAScreening6(Gajaseni, 2007)2 Scoping Definition: is a process of interaction between the interested public,
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.
BLM Decision Making Process
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Jamie McPherson Partner – MVM Legal
Programmatic Agreements
101 New London Road Newark, Delaware
Special Publication Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations Dr. Ron Ross Computer Security.
Changes to Exempt Categories
MPO School Transportation Working Group
Monte Mills Alexander Blewett III School of Law University of Montana
Section 106 Consulting Parties Meeting
Changes to Exempt Categories
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.
Current and Planned Management Initiatives
Navigating the SHPD Review Process
Division of Long-Term Services and Supports
Class I Redesignations
National Historic Preservation Act
Protecting What We Love Building What We Need – The “H” Factor
National Historic Preservation Act
National Historic Preservation Act
Presentation transcript:

Programmatic Approaches to Section 106 Compliance Jay Thomas Navy Cultural Resources Office joseph.b.thomas@navy.mil

What NHPA section 106 requires For agency undertakings: Take into account effects on historic properties Provide ACHP a chance to comment, as specified in 36 CFR Part 800 Default path is case by case, step by step Assess undertaking Identify historic properties Assess adverse effects Resolve adverse effects

Program alternatives Case-by-case not always most efficient/effective way to do 106 ACHP regs provide for “program alternatives” Common features of program alternatives: Allow tailored approaches to particular situations Allow tighter meshing of agency processes and 106 compliance Developed in consultation with ACHP and others – not unilateral by agency

Five types per 36 CFR 800.14 Programmatic agreement Program comment Exemption Alternate procedures Standard treatment (in descending frequency of use)

Programmatic agreements Governs implementation of particular programs or resolution of complex situations Frequently used and well understood Negotiated among agency, S/THPO, maybe ACHP, and other appropriate parties

When to use When effects are similar/repetitive/multi-state/regional When effects cannot be predicted before undertaking approval When nonfederal parties are delegated decisionmaking responsibilities For routine management actions When circumstances warrant

Program comment ACHP comment on a category of undertakings in lieu of individual reviews Process: Agency proposes program (already well coordinated) ACHP consults with SHPO/THPOs ACHP comments within 45 days Agency executes program as commented on New alternative; not much use yet

Two variations so far One-time mitigation Capehart-Wherry housing (done) Bunkers/ammo plants/unaccompanied personnel housing (in development) Tailored continuing process/mitigation Navy ships (in development)

Exemptions A program or category of undertakings is exempted from further review Criteria: Is an undertaking Potential effects foreseeable/minimal or not adverse Consistent with purposes of NHPA New alternative; only two so far Historic natural gas pipelines Interstate highway system

Alternate procedures Agency procedures for implementing section 106 in lieu of ACHP regs Army procedures in place 2001 Installations in consultation may develop History Property Components with tailored SOPs for compliance steps FEMA procedures in development

Standard treatments ACHP may establish standard methods for treatment of A category of historic properties A category of undertakings A category of effects New alternative -- none yet Early discussions between ACHP and Navy on developing standard treatments that can be incorporated in project guide specifications

Summary Program alternatives require thought, work, and coordination, but can provide tighter linkage between agency programs and historic preservation Still plenty of opportunities to explore