The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office & 106 Reviews

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Historic Preservation Tax Credits The Process and Avoiding Common Problems National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services.
Advertisements

Historic Preservation Tax Credits The Process and Avoiding Common Problems Charles E. Fisher New York City, June 2009 National Park Service, Technical.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Section 106
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) ACMP Conference Juneau, AK 2007.
Oregon Jobs and Transportation Act Section 18
IDENTIFYING, EVALUATING, AND PRESERVING MINNESOTA'S HISTORIC ROADSIDE FACILITIES.
Subchapter M-Indian Self- Determination and Education Assistance Act Program Part 273-Education Contracts under Johnson-OMalley Act.
SAFETEA-LU Efficient Environmental Review Process (Section 6002) Kelly Dunlap.
Section 4(f) Section 6(f). Section 4(f) Process Overview 2 Project Initiation Package Field Review 4(f) Property Present Use Coordination NEPA Document.
Cultural Resources Categorical Exclusion Training Class.
Jennifer Horn, Preservation Pennsylvania. Who is Preservation Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania’s only private, non-profit, statewide organization dedicated.
Preservation Tax Incentives for Historic Buildings A Joint Program of the following agencies: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Department.
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.
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.
Historic Preservation in Indianapolis: Government Programs Presentation to Chapters of The Daughters of the American Revolution November 14, 2009 Indianapolis.
November 22, 2011 Historical Commission Mission : To promote, preserve and protect Alachua County’s historic resources.
The Fly in the Ointment: Consultation Under Section 106 and Other Laws Related to Historic Preservation Peacekeeper Conference, 1985.
NHPA, Section 106, and NEPA Highlights and Misconceptions.
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy & Planning.
Driving Indiana’s Economic Growth. Management and Preservation of Indiana's Historic Bridges: A Programmatic Approach Thanks to Mead & Hunt & FHWA-IN.
Implementing the State Preservation Plan kshs.org.
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.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ____________________ Review and Compliance for CDBG/CHIP Program Projects.
SAFETEA-LU Changes  Exemption of the Interstate System from Section 4(f) [Section 6007]  de minimis impacts to historic sites [Section 6009(a)]  de.
Environmental Planning CULTURAL RESOURCES CH 5 - HO # 13
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.
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.
Integrating Other Laws into BLM Planning. Objectives Integrate legal requirements into the planning process. Discuss laws with review and consultation.
Section 106: Historic Preservation Review and Compliance as it relates to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 “How Can State Agencies Assist.
3D Technology and the Section 106 Process Matt Diederich Archaeologist Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Oregon Heritage Programs Division.
National Historic Districts And Why Taylor Should Be Among Them.
By Rachel Coleman.  “ The head of any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking.
Department of Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division 1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Review and Compliance for CDBG/CHIP.
State Historic Preservation Office Tami Koontz
1 Historic Preservation Webinar "Reporting Through PAGE and to PMC"
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,
Program Overview: HPF Grants to Tribes 1. National Historic Preservation Act Enacted in 1966 to Establish a Program for the Preservation of Historic Properties.
Cultural Resources and Your Conservation Plan USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service What Are Cultural Resources? Do you enjoy looking at your family’s.
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.
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.
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.
National Treasures: Brownfields and the National Historic Preservation Act Brownfields 2006 Boston, MA.
101 New London Road Newark, Delaware
Program Overview: Tribal Preservation Program and HPF Grants to Tribes
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project FERC Project No February 26, 2008.
Susan Barnes Vice-Chairman Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
May 8, 2018 Marion Werkheiser, Cultural Heritage Partners
Overview of 2019 Non-BIA Federal Register Notice
Cultural Resources Categorical Exclusion Training Class – Presented by the Office of Environmental Services.
National Historic Preservation Act
The Role of the SHPO John Pouley, Assistant State Archaeologist
NCHRP 25-25, TASK 106 HIGHWAY NOISE AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES:
Rochelle downtown Historic District
Protecting What We Love Building What We Need – The “H” Factor
Overview of 2020 Non-BIA Federal Register Notice
National Historic Preservation Act
National Historic Preservation Act
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
Presentation transcript:

The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office & 106 Reviews Presented By: Mary Ann Heidemann, Manager Government Programs and Compliance For: ACE/MN Annual Conference March 5, 2012

Establishment of SHPO SHPO authorized in Sec. 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act, passed in 1966 Minnesota SHPO established in 1968 SHPO appointed by each State’s Governor Federal Act sets minimum program requirements 6

Duties of the SHPO Under The National Historic Preservation Act Conduct a comprehensive state-wide survey of historic resources Nominate properties to the National Register Create & implement the State Preservation Plan Administer State program of Federal preservation incentive programs Assist local units & state agencies with historic preservation Consult with Federal agencies about impact of Federal projects on historic resources Provide public information, education, training and technical assistance

Intended Audiences Owners of historic properties Local government units State agencies Federal agencies Tribes Preservation groups Preservation professionals The public

Participation in SHPO/THPO Programs All 50 States Eight US Territories Washington DC Native American Tribes MN has 9 THPOs currently (out of 11 recognized tribes)

MN SHPO Organizational Structure & Location SHPO is located in MN Historical Society (MHS) MN Legislature named head of MHS as State Historic Pres. Officer Government function inside a private, non-profit institution SHPO offices located in History Center, in downtown St. Paul

SHPO Director and Staff in MN Steve Elliott Heads MN Historical Society and Serves as the MN SHPO Barbara Howard is Deputy SHPO & Department Head SHPO has 18 staff persons in four areas Administration: 2 Outreach & Grants: 7 Register & Incentives: 4 Compliance: 5 Many state/federal agencies employ in-house historians & archaeologists (ie: MnDOT)

MN SHPO Organizational Chart

MN SHPO Staff

SHPO Programs in Minnesota National Register Federal Tax Credits State Tax Credits MN Legacy Grants MN Main Street Prog. Sec. 106 Reviews Assist Local Heritage Preservation Comm. Keep Historic Site & Survey Records Create Preservation Plan

Sec. 106 review per 36 CFR Part 800

Programmatic Agreement between FHWA, SHPO & MnDOT Internalizes Transportation Review MnDOT’s Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) represents FHWA CRU reviews FHWA projects for potential affects on historic properties Projects with no historic properties move forward Projects historic properties but no effect move forward Projects that may affect historic properties go to SHPO

“Reasonable Effort” is required by regs to identify historic properties. This means a survey. Survey Requirements: Cover both structures & archaeological sites Identify known sites Conduct Phase I Survey to discover any new sites Evaluate Register eligibility of new sites If site is Register eligible, evaluate effect of project on the historic property

Compliance Unit Sec. 106 Review Process Applies to projects receiving federal funds or permits that have the potential to effect historic sites. In FY 2010, 5006 new review packets were received. Project Receipt & Screening Distribution for Comments Sent to appropriate staff Archaeologist Architectural Historian Architect Twice monthly triage Experts make comments Compliance Unit compiles response within 30 days Complex projects may require series of responses Hard copy submittals only Date stamped & logged in Map & file of project area & known sites created Projects with no effect on historic properties get quick turn-around Projects in or near known sites are reviewed further Distributed internally

SHPO Submittal Content Describe undertaking Funding & permits Project location map Area of Potential Effect Ground to be disturbed Building/site photos Available plans/designs Public participation info Don’t assume we understand the project as well as you do!

Check with SHPO for Known Sites Site Data Base Includes: Access to Site Data Historical and Architectural Sites Archaeological Sites Regulatory Status of Sites: Listed in National Register Certified as eligible Staff finding as eligible Location of sites (T,R, Sec) State Register sites listed in MN Historic Sites Act Mapped on SHPO topos Known sites also have a file Maps and files open to public Tues-Fri, 8:30-4:00 Or send data base query to: thomas.cinadr@mnhs.org requesting known sites in each geo section of interest Queries run once a week

If Historic Properties are Present or Suspected Within the APE, SHPO Concerns Can Include: Archaeological site disturbance Adverse building or site impact Additions or alterations Severing property Adverse site modifications Changes in key site features Change of setting & function Visual effects Noise, vibration & traffic Historic Dist. business impacts

Resolution of Adverse Effects Avoid Find known sites Change plans Minimize Compatible designs Mitigate Negotiate an MOA Agree on stipulations Typical Hot Buttons: Near water (archaeology) CCC/WPA structures Mid-century modern designs Construction impacts Visual or noise effects on nearby historic sites

Questions or Comments? Thank You!