Section 106, Section 4(f) and You!: The Role of Consulting Parties in Transportation Projects Kevin Mock, Historic Preservation Specialist Pennsylvania.

Slides:



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

Initiated in 2007 with a study population of bridges are considered historic and eligible or listed on the National Register 111 Bridges are.
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.
Presented by: The Ohio Department of Transportation 1 36 CFR Part 800 Protection of Historic Properties Section 106 Managing the Environmental & Project.
Farmlands Office Of Environmental Services Managing the Environmental and Project Development Process Presented by the Ohio Department of Transportation.
National Environmental Policy Act of Establishes protection of the environment as a national priority Mandates that environmental impacts be considered.
Jennifer Horn, Preservation Pennsylvania. Who is Preservation Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania’s only private, non-profit, statewide organization dedicated.
Environmental Compliance Negotiating our way through the process…
Program Alternatives under 36 CFR Part 800 Dave Berwick Army Affairs Coordinator Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Tribal Issues & Project Delivery Case Studies & Lessons Learned Federal Highway Administration Washington Division FHWA Environmental Meeting, June 29,
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.
Update on Historic Bridges MaryAnn Naber Federal Highway Administration June 17, 2008.
NHPA, Section 106, and NEPA Highlights and Misconceptions.
Local and Tribal Intergovernmental Consultation Senate Bill 18: Law, Definitions, Process Protection of Traditional Tribal Cultural Places.
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.
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy & Planning.
Historic Preservation AMCV1550, Week 4. Movement’s beginnings Mount Vernon Ladies Association (1853) Designated National Historic Landmark 1960 – Role.
Sacred Sites. Documentation Documentation: Forest Supervisor or Ranger District Offices may document Sacred site (s) information in a variety of ways.
Future Transportation Projects within the Loxahatchee River Basin Florida Department of Transportation District IV 3400 W. Commercial Blvd W. Commercial.
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.
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.
Environmental Planning CULTURAL RESOURCES CH 5 - HO # 13
Mitigation in the Section 106 Process Dave Berwick Army Program Manager Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
1 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CULTURAL RESOURCES LAWS AND REGULATIONS CH 5 CH 5 HO # 13, 13a, 13b
INTRODUCTION TO SECTION 4(f) Presented by Ian Chidister Environmental Program Manager FHWA – Wisconsin Division December 4, 2013.
Nadine Peterson Preservation Planner NH Division of Historical Resources Lynne E. Monroe Preservation Company Christopher W. Closs Christopher W. Closs.
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.
Section 106: Historic Preservation Review and Compliance as it relates to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 “How Can State Agencies Assist.
Recreational Trails Program Federal Requirements.
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.
Locally Administered Federal-Aid Project Initiation Workshop Prospectus Part 3 and NEPA Requirements Presenter: Howard Postovit; ODOT Region 5 Region Environmental.
Section 4(f)/6(f) Categorical Exclusion Training Class.
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,
NEPA and Section 106: An Introduction WISDOT MEETING NOVEMBER 3-4, 2015.
Raising the Bar: Improving the Roles of the State, MPO, and FHWA in Tribal Consultation Tribal Transportation Planning, Partnering and Consultation James.
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.
Section 4(f) Categorical Exclusion Training Class.
Executive Order Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews Priority Issues.
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.
Programmatic Agreements
Monte Mills Alexander Blewett III School of Law University of Montana
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division
Midterm Review Public Archaeology.
May 8, 2018 Marion Werkheiser, Cultural Heritage Partners
Cultural Resources Categorical Exclusion Training Class – Presented by the Office of Environmental Services.
Section 4(f) 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:
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:

Section 106, Section 4(f) and You!: The Role of Consulting Parties in Transportation Projects Kevin Mock, Historic Preservation Specialist Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Engineering Districts 4-0 & 5-0 Scranton, Pa

Linton Stevens Covered Bridge, ca Elk Township Wooden Burr Truss

Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act, of 1966 – Establishes a program for the preservation of historic properties Section 106 – Applies to all federal undertakings: federal aid and federal permits – Federal agencies need to assess effects of their projects on historic properties – codified as 36CFR§800: Protection of Historic Properties

Section 106 Section 106 Programmatic Agreement In PA – Between Federal Highway Administration, PennDOT, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and PHMC Signed in 2010 – PennDOT acts on behalf of FWHA in making determinations of effect – PennDOT Pub 689: Cultural Resources Handbook

Section 106 Historic Property – At least 50 years old (some exceptions) – Four criteria: Associated with a significant person Significant architectural style Associated with a significant event in history Data potential (usually used for archaeology) – Must also retain its integrity

Ross Fording Bridge, ca West Fallowfield Twp. Pratt Thru Steel Truss

Section 106 Consulting Parties (per 36CFR§800.2): – State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) In Pennsylvania: Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) – Indian Tribes (federally recognized) – Representatives of local governments – Applicants for federal permit or assistance (e.g., Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) – Additional consulting parties…

Section 106 Public : – “The views of the public are essential to informed Federal decision-making in the section 106 process. The agency shall seek and consider the views of the public in a manner that reflects the nature and complexity of the undertaking and its effects on historic properties, the likely interest of the public in the effects on historic properties, confidentiality concerns of private individuals and businesses, and the relationship of the Federal involvement in the undertaking.” (36CFR§800.2(d)(1))

Section 106 Adverse Effect – FHWA required to mitigate adverse effects to historic properties – Opportunity for Public (i.e., consulting parties) to provide input – An eligible or listed bridge requiring demolition: FHWA only pays up to 80% of demolition cost for moving the bridge – federal law! Bridge no longer eligible for future federal funding

Nicholson Bridge, ca.1878 Wyoming County Lenticular Thru Truss

Section 106 Key Points: – Section 106 is a procedural law, not a statutory law – FHWA is the decider! – An historic property does not stop a project – Consulting parties need to be more active in the 106 process, especially in developing mitigation

Section 4(f) The Department of Transportation Act of 1966, section 4(f): – “…special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside, public parks, recreation lands…and historic sites” – Cannot approve the use of public or private historical sites, unless… There is no feasible or prudent alternative to that use The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from use – Only applies to FHWA and other DOTs

Pond Eddy Bridge, ca Pike County Pennsylvania Petit Thru Truss

Linking Planning-NEPA – Federal Highway initiative to coordinate planning and the National Environmental Policy Act – Starts with the Regional Planning Organization Chester County: Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission – Objective is to identify potential environmental impacts early in the planning process – Linked to the Twelve Year Plan To be updated in 2013 – Another opportunity for public involvement

Resource Guide FHWA, PennDOT, and ACHP Programmatic Agreement: PennDOT Public Involvement Handbook (Pub 295): ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20295.pdfftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20295.pdf PennDOT Cultural Resources Handbook (Pub 689): ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20689.pdfftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20689.pdf FHWA and Section 4(F): Linking Planning-NEPA: TYP: ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/STCTAC/STCHearing2013TYP/STCHearingGuidelines2013.pdfftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/STCTAC/STCHearing2013TYP/STCHearingGuidelines2013.pdf