Skip to content
Secondary Content

Category Archives: SHPO Compliance

Compliance Agreements

The Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) enters into several legally binding agreements with state and federal agencies each year. These agreements are the result of perhaps months, or even years, of careful negotiation to balance the project proposal and the handling of cultural resources. This page serves as a clearinghouse to post these agreements to offer more transparency to the process, and also raise awareness of historic properties being adversely affected by agencies and proponents. Programmatic Agreements (PA) and Memorandum of Agreements (MOA) are the two legal documents that the SHPO sign, where MOAs are project-specific and PAs are broad and overarching.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has provided a template MOA to assist agencies in their compliance efforts. Click Here


Featured Programmatic Agreement

Prototype Agreement between the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), The Utah Division of Emergency Management, and the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer

Executed in 2016, this PA creates a formal relationship between FEMA and the SHPO during times of a federally-declared emergency. This agreement outlines the procedures by which FEMA and its sub-grantees will respond to cultural resources concerns during response and recovery to a natural or human disaster. Already in 2016-2017, this agreement has helped facilitate an efficient and timely response to the devastating floods in Box Elder, Cache, and Weber Counties while ensuring no inadvertent damage to archaeological or historical resources.


Featured Memorandum of Agreement

Dee Elementary School Demolition MOA between Ogden City Corporation, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer and Utah Heritage Foundation

Ogden City acquired the historic and defunct Dee Elementary School from the Ogden School District and used federal HUD funding to further a new housing development on the site. The Utah State Historic Preservation Office and consulting parties Preservation Utah (formerly Utah Heritage Foundation) and the Weber County Heritage Foundation were consulted with on the undertaking and took an active part in the mitigation for the project. In addition to the standard research and documentation often seen as part of mitigation, other stipulations with more of a public component, such as oral history interviews and museum exhibits, were executed.


Programmatic Agreement Archive

Title Agencies Year Executed Year Expire
Prototype Agreement for Emergency Response FEMA, OEM, SHPO 2016 2026
Bureau of Land Management Small-Scale Undertakings BLM, SHPO, ACHP 2014 2024
Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program OSMRE, BLM, USFS, ACHP, SITLA, DOGM, SHPO 2017 2027
Prototype Agreement for Weatherization and Energy Efficiency DOE, Utah HUD, SHPO (Agreement extended by Program Comment) 2010  2020
Utah Department of Agriculture Programmatic Agreement UDAF, PLPCO, SHPO 2017  2027
Transwest Express Transmission Project  BLM, WAPA, USFS, NPS, BOR, BIA, USFWS, ACOE, ACHP, Ute Tribe, Moapa Moapa Band of Paiutes, UT SHPO, WY SHPO, etc.  2016  2031
Natural Resources Conservation Service Prototype Agreement NRCS, SHPO  2015  2025
Steinaker Canal Vernal Efficiency Project  BOR, SHPO, Uintah Water Conservancy District 2016 2035
 Maintenance and Minor Construction Activities for Western Area Power Administration Lines ACHP, WAPA, BIA, BLM, BOR, NPS, SHPO (UT, NM, CO, WY, NE), Navajo Nation, Northern Arapahoe, Shoshone, Ute Mountain Ute, U.S. Army-Fort Carson, USFWS, USFS, State Land of NM, WY Military Department  2015 2025
Willard Canal Lining Project BOR, SHPO, Weber Basin Water Conservancy District 2016 —–
West Davis Corridor Project FHWA, UDOT, SHPO 2017 —–
Enel Cove Fort Project BLM, USFS, SHPO 2015 2025
Nationwide National Park Service Agreement DOI, NCSHPO, ACHP 2008 —–

Memorandum of Agreement Archive

Title Agencies Year Executed Year Expire
Camp Williams Building Demolition Projects UTARNG, SHPO 2017 2021
SR-39, Ogden to Pineview Reservoir Bridge Rehab UDOT, SHPO 2017 2022
Green River Canal Fish Barrier Project BOR, ACOE, SHPO 2017 2018
Bangerter Highway Interchange at 600W UDOT, FFSL, UOL, SHPO 2017 2027
Riverdale Bench/Bryson Meadows Project Canal Piping ACOE, SHPO 2017 2022
Flowers Foods, Ogden (State Undertaking) OCRDA, SHPO 2017 2022
 Dee Elementary School Demolition  Ogden City, SHPO 2016 2017

 

Utah Historic Preservation Plan to 2022

So why a Statewide Preservation Plan? As defined in the National Historic Preservation Act, each State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) “must carry out a historic preservation planning process that includes the development and implementation of a comprehensive statewide historic preservation plan providing guidance for effective decision making about historic property preservation throughout the State.”  Beyond the legal requirements, this Statewide Preservation Plan captures the current state of historic preservation efforts in Utah and uses that information to provide a road map looking forward to assist in planning and decision-making by all those who affect the resources.

As described in this plan, over the next eight years, UTSHPO will engage in four goals:

  1. Build a Foundation of Knowledge – By increasing awareness and appreciation for Utah’s diverse heritage
  2. Practice Preservation Ethics – Understanding and use of accepted preservation standards and techniques
  3. Improve Collaboration – Strengthen existing partnerships and build new ones
  4. Increase Economic Infrastructure – Advance preservation as economic development

UTSHPO staff clearly articulated to all interested parties that this plan is to not only guide the efforts of this office, but to also build a road map for all Utahns towards a common set of goals.

Click on the Plan Cover below to see the full document. If you have questions, comments, edits, or ideas regarding this plan or the documents below please email Chris Merritt at cmerritt@utah.gov or Kevin Fayles at kfayles@utah.gov.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below are some great examples of what people think about “Heritage” in Utah:

  • To know our roots/ancestry is to know ourselves.
  • Heritage and historic preservation bring history alive, improves our town’s and state’s economic vitality, honors our forbears, helps bridge cultural differences, and nurtures a shared sense of belonging.
  • “Heritage” is an intangible resource, accessible and available to EVERYONE. It should, and does require an appreciation for and understanding of one’s personal history, family history, as well as regional (and larger history). Fostering such an interest in personal history is a strength here in Utah, but so much more could be done to make important links between personal histories and wider trends in regional development, the importance of preserving various aspects of tangible history, as well as educating the public on some of the more obscure regulatory aspects of historic preservation, archaeology, land- and resource-management, and the important role public advocates of history and “heritage” play.
  • Our history, which encompasses not only the people from our past but the places they lived, worked and played

 

  • We cannot understand who we are without understanding our past, and the past of those who lived here before we got here. Our heritage – the physical remains of past lives and communities – is what informs us of how we came to be. Our heritage also enriches our lives and communities by putting a physical and material face on the stories we share.
  • Heritage is what remains of our shared past. It belongs to all of us. Living in a tourist economy, it also bring tourists to our area.
  • We are shaped by the stories of our past and heritage sites are the part of our culture that show-and-tell us who we are. Without physical evidence the stories lose a lot of their meaning. One of my favorite quotes is:
    “How can we live without our lives? How will we know it’s us without our past?”
    ― John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath
  • Being both Hispanic and Native American Indian, heritage is EXTREMELY important to me! I lost much of it with the idea of assimilation and the misunderstanding of what heritage is! Heritage is where you come from, who you are, and who your descendants will be – it includes Language, ways of life, of believing, and of how we treat each other as well as our Earth. So much of this has already been lost – I believe it is imperative for our future generations as well as our survival to know the past, protect what we can, and to pass on our heritage – our communities DEPEND on it!!
  • It’s our legacy, a symbol of who and what we were. If it’s destroyed or altered that precious history is erased. To live only for the moment, for the “now,” for the ultramodern, is a very shallow way to live.
  • Historic cultural resources define the unique character of a place, i.e. heritage. The cultural identity embodied in historic places contributes to social stability and the economic sustainability of communities when historic places continue to be used and maintained with thoughtful stewardship. Reuse of historic properties is environmentally responsible as noted in the tagline, “The greenest building is the one already built.”

 

National Register Nominations | September 2014

In October 2014, the Board of State History, for the Utah Division of State History, will review five (5) nominations to the National Register. These nominations are:

John & Margaret Price House in Salt Lake City


Murray City Diesel Power Plant in Murray


Rawsel & Jane Bradford House in Murray


James & Mary Jane Miller House in Murray


John & Sarah Jane Wayman House in Centerville


The Board of State History meets on October 17, 2014. These meetings are public. To view or print the meeting agenda, please visit the Board of State History on this web site. Please note: agenda for October 2014 may be delayed due to the production of the sixty-second annual Utah State History conference.

Find an Archaeological Consultant

When looking for an archaeological consultant, you should ask yourselves two things:

1) Is this firm or person qualified?
2) Do they have the necessary permits?


Find consultants with permits

Since people with the necessary permits are also often qualified, it’s often worth starting there.  Here are the guidelines on permits:

State:  A person who does work on state-owned land needs a state permit.  People with state permits can be found listed on this website: http://publiclands.utah.gov/archaeology/

Federal: Federal law requires that work on federal land be done by qualified people. Federal agencies such as the BLM or Forest Service maintain their own list of permitted contractors. You should contact these agencies directly.


Try a consultant list

Another possible source for finding qualified consultants is the American Cultural Resources Association. See http://acra-crm.org/ for a list. A consultant on this site may not be qualified or permitted to do all work in all places, though. We recommend checking in detail with consultants directly regarding their experience and qualifications.


Finally–

At the end of the day, we recommend that people treat a cultural resources contractor with the same care they treat any other contractor/consultant. It’s always good to shop around, get multiple bids, check references, and do careful homework to find a person who can do the work to your needs and satisfaction, at a competitive price.

Public Input (SHPO)

Federal and state law requires that governments and agencies must involve the public in any undertaking that may affect historic or archaeological resources.

Governments and agencies can choose how to fulfill this requirement, but in general, the public can comment during any part of the process as undertakings are reviewed for compliance with the law.

(The federal law states, “The views of the public are essential to informed Federal decisionmaking.”)

If you are concerned about a project on public lands, or a project on private lands that is partly funded by state or federal government, contact us, and we can let you know where that project is in the review process. (The process is similar for state and federal projects.)

For projects affecting historic buildings, contact Chris Hansen at 801-245-7239.

For projects affecting archaeological resources, contact Elizabeth Hora-Cook at 801-245-7241.

State Law (Section 404)

What’s it about?

Utah law requires state agencies and developers using state funds to take into account how their expenditures or undertakings will affect historic properties. They must also provide the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) with a written evaluation of the project and an opportunity to comment.

The Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (PLPCO) is authorized under 9-8-404 to review comments made by SHPO and mediate disputes between a state agency and the SHPO.

Read the law: Utah Code Annotated 9-8-404

Also, under Utah Code Annotated 17C-2-104 and UCA 17C-3-104 Local Government Community Development and Renewal Agencies, or as a Redevelopment Agency under previous law, are to comply with Section 9-8-404 when undertaking urban renewal and/or economic development projects as though the agency were a state agency.

 

Federal Law (Section 106)

What’s it about?

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires every federal agency to “take into account” how its projects and expenditures will affect historic properties, which includes prehistoric and historic sites.

Projects include construction, rehabilitation, demolition, licenses, permits, loan guarantees, transfer of federal property, etc. State and local governments and others using federal funds are also required to comply with Section 106.

Read the law:  Section 106 Regulations (36 CFR Part 800)

Details


 Section 106 steps

STEP ONE:

The agency determines whether its proposed action is an undertaking. An undertaking is defined as a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, license or approval.

STEP TWO:

The agency makes determinations of eligibility and effect for the undertaking:

ELIGIBILITY: Is the site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places?

Properties already listed on the National Register are, of course, “eligible.” Properties not yet listed are considered eligible if they meet the following criteria:

  • Age – 50 years old or older
  • Research potential – Sites can yield important information about prehistory or history.

If the site is 50 years old or older and has integrity, the determination would be “Eligible Historic Property.”

If there are no historic properties in the project area, or if the site is less than 50 years old, or if the site lacks integrity, the determination would be “No Historic Properties.”

EFFECT: What impact will the work will have on the site?

Effect needs to be determined only for eligible properties. There are three possible effects:

  • No Effect – Only minor changes are being proposed, e.g., planning or minor construction.
  • No Adverse Effect – More substantial changes are proposed, but they meet Secretary of the Interior Standards.
  • Adverse Effect – Work is proposed that will damage or diminish the historic integrity of the property or its research potential.

In most cases, archaeological sites receive a No Adverse Effect if the site’s value lies solely in its research potential, and the information can be preserved through appropriate research.

STEP THREE:

The agency or government consults with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on its determinations.

Consult about projects possibly affecting historic structures

Consult about projects possibly affecting archaeological resources

STEP FOUR:

SHPO either concurs with the determinations or does not concur.
If SHPO concurs:

  • No Historic Property, No Effect, or No Adverse Affect: You are finished with the Section 106 Review consultation process.
  • Adverse Effect: The agency enters into a “Memorandum of Agreement” (MOA) to mitigate the adverse effect or submits a research design to mitigate adverse effects through proper recovery. The MOA is signed by the agency and SHPO. The federal agency submits the MOA to the Advisory Council, along with a description of the project and the alternatives that were considered to mitigate the “adverse effect.” The Advisory Council has 30 days to review the project and decide if it is willing to sign the MOA. Once the MOA is signed, the documentation should be completed and accepted by designated repositories before the project begins.

If SHPO does not concur: Federal agencies may make final determinations, i.e., the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.


Section 106 Training Opportunities

Workshops and other Section 106 training opportunities are provided by a variety of organizations.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
http://www.achp.gov/training.html

Federal Preservation Institute
https://www.historicpreservation.gov/web/14501/1

National Preservation Institute
http://www.npi.org/

SRI Foundation
http://www.srifoundation.org/continuing_ed.html

SWCA Environmental Consultants
http://www.swca.com/jsps/training/training.htm


Advisory Council on Historic Preservation web pages:

Section 106 Flowchart
Flowchart outlining the Section 106 process step-by-step.

Section 106 Citizens Guide 
Brochure that explains the Section 106 process and the public’s role within that process.

Section 106 Case Digest
A digest of current and archived prominent Section 106 cases throughout the country.

Section 106 Relation to Other Laws
Federal agencies have responsibilities under multiple laws that may influence the way they carry out their Section 106 duties; compliance with one or more of these other statutes does not substitute for compliance with ACHP’s regulations.

Nationwide Programmatic Agreements
List of Nationwide Programmatic Agreements in effect, including the FCC Programmatic Agreement.

Federal Preservation Officers
List of FPO’s and their contact information.  Every agency has an FPO who coordinates preservation programs and interaction with other agencies.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation

Compliance for Archaeological Resources

For federal and state projects

What to send SHPO:


SHPO Procedure for Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP)

The Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) frequently receives requests from private companies to provide information in support of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP/UPDES).

We do applaud efforts to identify cultural resources as part of assessing sites and projects; however, SHPO is neither mandated in statute nor funded to provide this type of information to private entities. These requests need to be directed to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ); DWQ is the agency responsible for the SWPPP/UPDES program. SHPO will consult directly with DWQ to address any historic preservation-related project issues.

DWQ contact information: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/UPDES/stormwatercon.htm


Other Helpful Information and Links

Guidelines for Cell Towers

Developers of new cell phone towers and collocations are required to submit to the SHPO a packet (According to a Federal Communications Commission Cell Tower Programmatic Agreement dated October 5, 2004.)

See http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/npa.html for details and forms.


In an effort to streamline this process further and reduce paperwork, the Utah State Historic Preservation Office is willing to accept and provide official comment on packets that have only a limited portion of the materials required by the PA. We note, that this memo does not preclude compliance with the PA overall, applies only to submissions made to our office, does not preclude the right of the FCC to require that documentation noted in the PA be maintained, and does not preclude the rights of other agencies (if involved) to require particular documentation. Rather, we are simply stating that we are able to accept a shorter packet of materials than the one stipulated in the PA, in order to provide the SHPO comment on the effects determinations mandated by the PA. We will also continue to accept packets in the format noted in the PA.

Effective immediately, the Utah SHPO will accept submission packets containing the following materials:


For New Towers (FCC Form 620):

  • Form 620 Answers to Questions 1-5, certification and signature
  • Attachment 1 – Resumes. We only need this attachment if you have not previously submitted said resumes to our office.
  • Attachment 2 – Additional Site Information. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 3 – A summary of results of tribal consultation. However, we do not require copies of relevant documents. We advise proponents and consultants, however, to maintain these records. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 4 – A summary of contacts with local governments. However, we do not require copies of relevant documents. We advise proponents and consultants, however, to maintain these records. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 5 – A description of measures to obtain public involvement. However, we do not require copies of relevant documents. We advise proponents and consultants, however, to maintain these records. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 6 – List additional consulting parties. However, we do not require copies of relevant documents. We advise proponents and consultants, however, to maintain these records. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 7 – Description of APE for direct and visual effects. This can be brief. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10).
  • Attachment 8 – Identified historic properties in visual effects APE (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 9 – Identified historic properties in direct effects APE (see note below after Attachment 10).
  • Attachment 10 – Effects on identified properties. NOTE: For Attachments 2-10 we can accept a letter report or other report that contains the information requested by the attachments.
  • Attachment 11 – Attach in full, or attach the required maps as part of the report.
  • Attachment 12 – Attach in full, or attach the required maps as part of the report.
  • Bibliography (if needed).

For Collocations (FCC Form 621):

  • Form 621 Answers to Questions 1-5, certification and signature
  • Attachment 1 – Resumes. We only need this attachment if you have not previously submitted said resumes to our office.
  • Attachment 2 – Additional Site Information. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10).
  • Attachment 3 – A summary of results of tribal consultation. However, we do not require copies of relevant documents. We advise proponents and consultants, however, to maintain these records. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 4 – A summary of contacts with local governments. However, we do not require copies of relevant documents. We advise proponents and consultants, however, to maintain these records. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 5 – A description of measures to obtain public involvement. However, we do not require copies of relevant documents. We advise proponents and consultants, however, to maintain these records. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 6 – List additional consulting parties. However, we do not require copies of relevant documents. We advise proponents and consultants, however, to maintain these records. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 7 – Description of APE for direct and visual effects. This can be brief. This summary can be placed within a single letter (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 8 – Identified historic properties in visual effects APE (see note below after Attachment 10).
  • Attachment 9 – Identified historic properties in direct effects APE (see note below after Attachment 10)
  • Attachment 10 – Effects on identified properties. NOTE: For Attachments 2-10 we can accept a letter report or other report that contains the information requested by the attachments.
  • Attachment 11 – Attach in full, or attach the required photographs as part of the report.
  • Attachment 12 – Attach in full, or attach the required maps as part of the report.
  • Bibliography (if needed).

Summary:

In essence, although we will continue to accept packets that follow the format described in the PA, and while we do not in any way intend for this memo to supersede any requirements for compliance with the PA or maintenance of records for the FCC, we do state that we will accept submission packets that cover the essential requirements of the PA in an efficient format. In most cases, submission of the answers to questions, a letter report that covers the items in Attachments 2-10, and submission of photographs and maps following the standards set in Attachments 11 and 12, will be acceptable.