Draft Mcdowell Sonoran Preserve Cultural Resources Master Plan

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Draft Mcdowell Sonoran Preserve Cultural Resources Master Plan DRAFT MCDOWELL SONORAN PRESERVE CULTURAL RESOURCES MASTER PLAN CITY OF SCOTTSDALE | LOGAN SIMPSON JUNE , DRAFT SUBMITTAL TECHNICAL REPORT NO. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES III LIST OF TABLES IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION TO THE PLAN 1 Preserve Background 1 Acquisition of Preserve Lands and the Basis for Planning 2 City’s Vision and Goals 2 Current Status of the Preserve 3 CHAPTER 2 | PRESERVATION FRAMEWORK 5 Why Preserve? 5 Toward A Plan for Effective Cultural Resources Management 7 CHAPTER 3 | THE PLANNING PROCESS 17 Public Involvement Plan Purpose and Objectives 17 Public Involvement Opportunities 18 Public Review of the Draft Plan (June 2015) 19 Web‐Based Information Sharing and Data Collection 19 Release of the Final Plan (FALL 2015) 19 Integration of Public’s Priorities for Preservation into the Final Plan 19 Activities Accomplished 19 CHAPTER 4 | THE PRESERVE’S SETTING 23 Environmental Setting 23 Cultural Setting 25 CHAPTER 5 | CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PRESERVE 33 Archaeological Sites within the Preserve 33 Unreported Archaeological Sites 35 Themes 36 Prehistoric‐Era Associated Property Types 36 Historic‐Era Associated Cultural Resources 37 CHAPTER 6 | IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION, DESIGNATION, AND TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MCDOWELL SONORAN PRESERVE 41 Recommendations for Identification and Evaluation 42 CITY OF SCOTTSDALE MCDOWELL SONORAN PRESERVE DRAFT CULTURAL RESOURCE MASTER PLAN JUNE 2015 | II Recommendations for Designation 44 Recommendations for Treatment 44 CHAPTER 7 | PRESERVATION AND SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BROWN’S RANCH 54 Current Management of Brown’s Ranch 55 Threats to the Preservation of the Brown’s Ranch Site 56 Management Options for Brown’s Ranch—Preservation 57 Management Options for Brown’s Ranch—Education 60 Management Options for Brown’s Ranch—Recreation 60 Summary 62 CHAPTER 8 | PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 64 APPENDIX A | GLOSSARY 67 APPENDIX B | CITY OF SCOTTSDALE ORDINANCES 71 Ordinance 33, Chapter 21 (Preserve Ordinance) 71 Ordinance 3243, Chapter 46 (Archaeological Resources Ordinance) 77 Ordinance 3242, Chapter 6 (Zoning Ordinance, Historic Property Overlay) 84 APPENDIX C | RESEARCH GUIDELINES (RESOLUTION NO. 8854) 97 APPENDIX D | PUBLIC INPUT 101 APPENDIX E | NATIONAL, STATE AND LOCAL FRAMEWORKS FOR PRESERVATION 103 National Framework for Historic Preservation 103 State Framework for Historic Preservation 104 Local Framework for Historic Preservation 106 APPENDIX F | CULTURAL SETTING 110 APPENDIX G | ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES AND SITES 126 Archaeological Sites within the Preserve 130 APPENDIX H | RESEARCH QUESTIONS FOR PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC SITES 136 APPENDIX I GENERAL LAND OFFICE MAPS 140 REFERENCES 147 CITY OF SCOTTSDALE MCDOWELL SONORAN PRESERVE DRAFT CULTURAL RESOURCE MASTER PLAN JUNE 2015 | III LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. McDowell Sonoran Preserve boundary 24 Figure 2. Chronological Sequence for the Phoenix Basin 26 Figure 3. Woven Basketry 28 Figure 4. Historic Ranch in Paradise Valley 30 Figure 5. Taliesin West 31 Figure 6. Thunderbird Academy (with McDowell Mountains Above) 31 Figure 7. Prehistoric Petroglyph in the Preserve 34 Figure 8. Prehistoric Rock Shelter in the Preserve 34 Figure 9. Unrecorded Historic mining Adit in the Preserve 35 Figure 10. Unrecorded Historic Structure in the Preserve 36 Figure 11. Historic Mining Claim 38 Figure 12. Historic Rock Wall 39 Figure 13. Surveyed and Unsurveyed Land in the Preserve 43 Figure 14. Overview of Brown’s Ranch 55 Figure 15. Historic Tank (Brown’s Ranch) 56 Figure 16. Historic Water Complex at Brown’s Ranch 59 Figure 17. Chronological Sequence for the Phoenix Basin 111 Figure 18. Clovis Projectile Points (Paleoindian Period) 112 Figure 19. Metate (Archaic Period) 112 Figure 20. Dart Projectile Point (Early Formative Period) 114 Figure 21. Hohokam Clay Palette (Pioneer Period) 115 Figure 22. Hohokam Ballcourt (Late Colonial Period) 115 Figure 23. Hohokam Shell Artifacts (Sedentary Period) 117 Figure 24. Hohokam Polychrome Sherds (Classic Period) 118 Figure 25. Hohokam Big House, Casa Grande Ruins (Classic Period) 119 Figure 26. Woven Basketry 120 Figure 27. Historic Ranch in Paradise Valley 122 Figure 28. Thunderbird Academy (with McDowell Mountains Above) 123 Figure 29. Surveyed lands in the Preserve. 127 Figure 30. Unrecorded Historic Structure in the Preserve 133 CITY OF SCOTTSDALE MCDOWELL SONORAN PRESERVE DRAFT CULTURAL RESOURCE MASTER PLAN JUNE 2015 | IV LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Funding Sources Related to the Preserve 2 Table 2. Options for Interpretation 14 Table 3. Public Meeting Attendees and Stakeholders/Affiliations 21 Table 4. Previous Investigations in the Preserve Reported from AZSite 128 Table 5. Previously Recorded Sites within the Preserve from AZSite 130 Table 6. Cultural Resources Present on GLO Plat Maps 133 Table 7. Cultural Resources Depicted on USGS Topographical Maps 134 Table 8. Archaeological Resources Identified from Arizona Department of Mining and Minerals (AZDMM) Maps 134 Table 9. Research Questions for Prehistoric Sites 136 Table 10. Research Questions for Historic Sites 137 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Scottsdale (COS) requested Logan Simpson to develop a cultural resources master plan (Plan) for the Scottsdale McDowell Sonoran Preserve (Preserve). The Plan is part of continuing efforts to promote the protection and interpretation of cultural resources in the Preserve for present and future generations and to promote a sense of resource stewardship among the City’s constituency. Implementation of the Plan will provide the tools, policies, and practices to best manage and protect cultural resources within the Preserve. The Plan calls for the consideration of cultural resources in all levels of planning as well as education to heighten staff and visitor awareness of the non‐renewable cultural resources situated inside the boundary of the Preserve. Encompassing approximately 30,000 acres, the Preserve includes much of the McDowell Mountains and an adjoining pediment north of the mountains. This landscape includes scenic vistas of mixed saguaro, paloverde, yucca and creosote‐bursage plants. The diversity of plants and animals in the Preserve has drawn people to the land for the last 10,000 years. Early prehistoric inhabitants of the Preserve temporarily lived and worked in boulder rock shelters while hunting and gathering animal and plant resources. Later farmers used the arable lands along washes and participated in a complex regional exchange system that sustained them at permanent village sites. Habitation sites in the Preserve are generally small. However, at least one site possesses a documented ballcourt, a specialized form of public architecture that served as the focus of the Hohokam regional exchange system. In the historic period, early settlers used the land for mining and ranching activity. Ranching, in particular, was quite extensive in the area of the Preserve, with some ranches covering 50 square miles. The current draft of the Plan provides the COS, the McDowell Sonoran Conservancy (MSC), identified Preserve stakeholders, and the public with a framework for understanding how historic preservation planning achieves both the COS community vision and the management objectives established for the Preserve. The Draft Plan does not yet include the results of public polling regarding the prioritization of preservation issues or feedback received from public meetings. The public involvement process is described within the Plan and the formal results and recommendations will be presented in the Final Plan. This draft Plan provides general recommendations for management of the Preserve’s cultural resources, including: Continue to implement a program of cultural resources survey of unsurveyed lands within the Preserve to create a comprehensive inventory of cultural resources located within the Preserve of sites that have not been recorded Discuss designation of significant cultural resources in the local, state and National Registers of Historic Places Evaluate the effects of planning activities within the Preserve on cultural resources to determine appropriate treatments such as avoidance, and if necessary data recovery Promote an ethic of “conservation archaeology” and permit ground disturbing research only at threatened sites and only under the supervision of a qualified archaeologist permitted by the Arizona State Museum Develop a Trail Maintenance Protocol to maintain segments of trail that pass through archaeological sites CITY OF SCOTTSDALE MCDOWELL SONORAN PRESERVE DRAFT CULTURAL RESOURCE MASTER PLAN JUNE 2015 | VI Develop and implement a volunteer stewardship program to provide for routine monitoring of cultural resources that are eligible for listing in local, state, or National Register of Historic Places Consult with local Native American communities on Preserve initiatives and infrastructure planning that may have an effect on cultural resources The draft Plan also provides considerations for implementing interpretive and educational programming within the Preserve. Per the COS’ request, Logan Simpson also developed draft recommendations for management of the Brown’s Ranch Site, which include: Continue mapping of the historic surface components of the site with incorporation of the resulting map into a public education or informational display Continue efforts to identify the location of Stoneman’s Military Road with incorporation of information about the Road into existing interpretive materials
Recommended publications
  • FISCAL YEAR 2020 ANNUAL REPORT March 2021
    FISCAL YEAR 2020 ANNUAL REPORT March 2021 FCRPS Cultural Resources Program Rock imagery before and after graffiti removal at McNary site 45BN1753. FY 2020 Annual Report Under the FCRPS Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of Historic Properties – March 2021 This page intentionally left blank. 2 FY 2020 Annual Report Under the FCRPS Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of Historic Properties – March 2021 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APE Area of Potential Effects ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act BPA Bonneville Power Administration CFR Code of Federal Regulations Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRITFE Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Enforcement CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan CSKT Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation CTCR Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation CTWSRO Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon DAHP Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FCRPS Program FCRPS Cultural Resource Program FNF Flathead National Forest FY Fiscal year GIS Geographic Information Systems H/A CTCR History/Archaeology Program HMU Habitat management unit HPMP Historic Property Management Plan HPRCSIT Historic Property of Religious and Cultural Significance to Indian Tribes ID Idaho ISU Idaho State University KNF Kootenai National Forest 3 FY 2020 Annual Report Under the FCRPS Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of Historic Properties – March 2021 Lead Federal Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Agencies and the Bureau of Reclamation LiDAR Light detection and ranging MPD Multiple Property Documentation MT Montana NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Nez Perce/NPT Nez Perce Tribe NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPS National Park Service NPTCRP Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Resource Program NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWP Portland District, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Minutes of the 206
    Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Minutes of the 206th Meeting (Approved at the 207th Meeting) Burpee Museum of Natural History 737 North Main Street Rockford, IL 61103 Tuesday, September 21, 2010 206-1) Call to Order, Roll Call, and Introduction of Attendees At 10:05 a.m., pursuant to the Call to Order of Chair Riddell, the meeting began. Deborah Stone read the roll call. Members present: George Covington, Donnie Dann, Ronald Flemal, Richard Keating, William McClain, Jill Riddell, and Lauren Rosenthal. Members absent: Mare Payne and David Thomas. Chair Riddell stated that the Governor has appointed the following Commissioners: George M. Covington (replacing Harry Drucker), Donald (Donnie) R. Dann (replacing Bruce Ross- Shannon), William E. McClain (replacing Jill Allread), and Dr. David L. Thomas (replacing John Schwegman). It was moved by Rosenthal, seconded by Flemal, and carried that the following resolution be approved: The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission wishes to recognize the contributions of Jill Allread during her tenure as a Commissioner from 2000 to 2010. Jill served with distinction as Chair of the Commission from 2002 to 2004. She will be remembered for her clear sense of direction, her problem solving abilities, and her leadership in taking the Commission’s message to the broader public. Her years of service with the Commission and her continuing commitment to and advocacy for the Commission will always be greatly appreciated. (Resolution 2089) It was moved by Rosenthal, seconded by Flemal, and carried that the following resolution be approved: The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission wishes to recognize the contributions of Harry Drucker during his tenure as a Commissioner from 2001 to 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices
    This document can be accessed on the Shawnee National Forest website: www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/shawnee. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Shawnee National Forest Forest Plan FEIS Appendix A – Forest Plan Revision Issues and Public Involvement APPENDIX A FOREST PLAN REVISION ISSUES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I. INTRODUCTION The first SNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan) was approved on November 24, 1986. In 1988, following 23 administrative appeals, the Forest met with appellants and reached a settlement agreement. Significant changes in the Plan resulted in an amended Forest Plan signed in 1992. A lawsuit on nine counts was filed against the Plan in 1994. The court ruled in favor of the Forest Service on five counts and in favor of the plaintiffs on four. The court remanded the entire Plan, but allowed implementation, enjoining specific activities, including commercial, hardwood-timber harvest, ATV trail designation and oil and gas development.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Inventoiynomination Form 1. Name
    ___ _______ _____ I.. .- i.,,.z,...,.....a.......... __-_........,_...-4.. - -*_3__********_***____ - 0MB No 1024-0010 NP:’, orm ¶0-900 Cxp, 10-31-84 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received InventoiyNomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries-complete applicable sections 1. Name -- t’istoric__Oakland Historic District and or common 2. Location street& number VictoryHigway_____ N. A Congressional District #2 city.town Burrillyille N.vicinityot Hon. Claudine Schneider state Rhode Is land code 44 county Providence code 007 3. Classification Category Ownership Status - Present Use ._L district public x occupied agriculture museum buildings private x unoccupied ._JL commercial park structure X.both - work in progress educational - X private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object NA.in process _.X yes: restricted government scientific being considered - yes: unrestricted X industrial transportation Opel, a c’c no military . other: 4. Owner of Property name Multiple see owners list on file at R. I .11. p . C. street & number city, town vicinity of. state 5. Location Of Legal Description - courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Burril lville Town Hal I street& number 70 Main Street city,town l:!arrisville stateRhode island 02833 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Historic and Architectural Resources title of Burrillville--A Preliminaryhas this property been determined
    [Show full text]
  • Master Plan 2008 Re- Examination
    TOWN OF MORRISTOWN MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY MASTER PLAN 2008 RE- EXAMINATION 2003 Master Plan Prepared by and adopted by The Morristown Planning Board August 14, 2003 Re-examination prepared by and adopted by the Morristown Planning Board September 25, 2008 Morristown Master Plan Re-Examination 2008 TRANSMITTAL AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS August 28, 2008 Chairwoman Mary Dougherty Morristown Planning Board 200 South Street Morristown, New Jersey 07963 Dear Chairwoman Dougherty: I am pleased to submit to the Planning Board this 2008 Re-examination of the 2003 Master Plan. The Re-examination was prepared in accordance with the provisions of NJSA40:55D-89. It was presented to the Board and posted on the Town’s web site on July 11, 2008 and discussed by the Board at it’s July 24, 2008 meeting. Because of their age and near obsolescence, the Zone Map, Schedule I and Schedule II were the first elements of the Master Plan to be re-examined. These documents were reviewed by the Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Board and the public at four meetings between November 2006 and February 2007. Subsequently, they were reviewed by the full Planning Board and the public at two meetings in March 2007. They were presented to the Council on April 10, 2007 and after several meetings were approved on September 11, 2007. Note that this reexamination does not contain a Housing Element. Since the COAH regulations have not been finalized by the State as of this writing, the basic legislation necessary to prepare the Housing Element is yet to be enacted.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation to the City Council of the Hailey Historic Preservation Commission Recommendations: Recap 3 Public Workshops & Public Comment
    The Hailey Historic Preservation Commission Preserving Hailey’s Heritage and Sense of Place Recommendations for the City Council City Council Meeting Presentation to the City Council of the Hailey Historic Preservation Commission recommendations: Recap 3 Public Workshops & public comment. Welcome to all. Thank you for coming! It is our goal that you meet the Hailey Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and learn about our mission and what we’ve been working on. We’d like to discuss why preservation is important to Hailey, and tell you about our goals and some of the projects we’ve accomplished. We’d like to discuss some draft recommendations to the City Council to create an Historic District as well as Designation of Historic Properties on a volunteer basis. Additionally, we’d like to celebrate some of the fine preservation efforts in Hailey! And finally, we’d love to recruit some new members and volunteers! 1 The Hailey Historic Preservation Commission The HHPC was first established in 1987… It was re-established by ordinance in March 14, 2005. HHPC Board Denise Jackson Ford, Chair Anna Mathieu, Vice Chair Rob Lonning, Secretary Teddie Daley Joan Davies Julie Evans Laura Hall John Seiller Taylor Walker Rick Davis, City Council Liaison Meetings The HHPC meets at 6:30 PM on the last Tuesday of each month at the Hailey City Hall. Introduction: We are a volunteer board, with a wide range of experiences. We are a landscape architect, realtors, developers, the director of the Blaine County Historical Museum, and a lawyer and former P&Z commissioner. Some of us live in old Hailey, all of us love it.
    [Show full text]
  • Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Table of Contents
    United States Department of Agriculture NATIONAL FOREST PREFACE This National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was developed to direct the management of the Toiyabe National Forest. The goal df the Plan is to provide a management program reflective of a mixture of management activities that allow use and protection of Forest resources; fulfill legislative requirements; and address local, regional, and national issues and concerns. To accomplish this, the Forest Plan: SPECIFIES THE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES AND THE APPROXIMATE TIMING AND VICINITY OF THE PRACTICES NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THAT DIRECTION; AND ESTABLISHES THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THE DIRECTION IS CARRIED OUT AND TO DETERMINE HOW WELL OUTPUTS AND EFFECTS WERE PREDICTED. The Forest Plan will be reviewed (and updated if necessary) at least every five years. It will be revised on a IO- to 15-year cycle. Preparation of the Forest Plan is required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Assessment of its environmental impacts is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the implementing regulations of NFMA (36 WR 219). The Forest Plan replaces all previous resource management plans prepared for the Toiyabe National Forest. Upon approval of the Forest Plan, all subsequent activities affecting the Forest must be in compliance with the Forest Plan. In addition, all permits, contracts and other instruments for the use and 0 occupancy of National Forest System lands mst be in conformance with the Forest Plan. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNINC LEVELS Development of this Forest Plan occurs within the framework of Forest Service regional and national planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Presetvation Oklahoma Unveils 2001 List Of
    January 2001 Volume 7, number 2 Presetvation Oklahoma unveils 2001 List of LIST ADVISORY COUNCIL ADOPTS NEW On Saturday, Januq 6, Preservation Oklahoma, Inc. announced its 2001 List of REQUUTIONII The * PAOE Z - Oklahoma's Most Endangered Historic Properties. event, which took place at the First Presbyterian Church's historic Bemsen Community Life Center in downtown Tulsa, TWO SuWEla included a reception, the unveiling of the new lisf and the seventh in a series of lectures UNDERWAY IN STATE SHPO OFFERS in conjunction with the Most Endangered List traveling exhibit. NATIONALRLQISTER NOMINATIONGRANTII Approximately 40 Preservation Oklahoma members and members of the press were - PADL 3 - on hand as former executive director Robert K. Erwin supervised the unveiling, assisted by Preservation Oklahoma Board President Ralph McCalmont and several noted EIQHT NEWLISTINDI IN NATIONALREUISTER members of the preservation community: Stacey Bayles, executive director for the - PAQE 4 - American Institute of Architects Eastem Oklahoma Chapter; Bret Carter, Preservation Oklahoma member and part of the Ponca City Preservation Commission; Susan Guthrie A CLOSE^ LOOK AT THE THREENEW MOST Dunham, Preservation Oklahoma board member and trustee for the National Trust for ENDANQERED LIET PROPERTIESFOR ZOO1 Historic Preservation; Mama Ellard, former Preservation Oklahoma board president and - PAQE 5 - past chairman of the Oklahoma City Historical Preservation and Landmark Commission; Marty Newman, former president of Preservation Oklahoma, advisor to the National CALENOAROFEVENTS ENID SET FOR 13TH Trust for Historic Preservation, and former board member of Preservation Action; ANNUAL STATEWIOE PRESERVATION Catherine Montgomery, architect for the State Historic Preservation Office, and Todd CONFERENCE - PAQE 6 - Scott, architect for the Oklahoma Main Street Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Fsh 2309.12 – Heritage Program Handbook
    FSH 2309.12 – HERITAGE PROGRAM HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 CODE ............................................................................................................................ 1 Definitions ................................................................................................................. 1 Qualifications and Training ...................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 1 - CONSULTATION & COORDINATION .................................................... 13 CHAPTER 2 – PLANNING ............................................................................................. 38 CHAPTER 3 – INVENTORY, EVALUATION, & USE ALLOCATION ............................. 47 CHAPTER 4 – PROTECTION AND STEWARDSHIP ..................................................... 66 CHAPTER 5 - PUBLIC OUTREACH .............................................................................. 96 CHAPTER 6 – MANAGEMENT OF HERITAGE COLLECTIONS ................................. 111 CHAPTER 7 – PERMITS, CONTRACTS, AND AGREEMENTS .................................. 126 CHAPTER 8 – INFORMATION MANAGEMENT & REPORTING ................................. 141 HERITAGE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 2309.05 - Definitions -A- Adaptive Reuse: restoration or rehabilitation of an historic property such that it may be used for purposes other than its original purpose. Adaptive reuse may necessitate alterations to allow for the new use, but such alterations will maintain the historic integrity of the features that make the property historically
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Part One: An Overview of Federal Historic Preservation Law. I. Introduction ...................................................................... A . Background ............................................................................3 B. Scope of Report .........................................................................4 11 .The National Historic Preservation Act ...............................................5 A . Purpose and Structure ....................................................................5 B . Legislative History .......................................................................7 C . Key Statutory Provisions: Sections 106 and 1 10 ................................................8 1. Section 106 ..........................................................................8 2 . Section 1 10 ..........................................................................9 III . Section 106 Implementing Regulations ...............................................10 A . Current Regulations ..................................................................... 11 B. Proposed Regulations ................................................................... 13 IV . Court Opinions on Compliance with Section 106 and the Council's Regulations .... 13 A . Applicability of Section 106 ..............................................................13 1 . Section 106 applies to Federal agencies ..................................................13 2 . Section 106 applies to Federal undertakings ...............................................16
    [Show full text]
  • A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types
    A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15 Prepared for The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Council National Research Council Prepared By Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage October 2005 NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15 A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types TRANSPORATION RESEARCH BOARD NAS-NRC PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT This report, not released for publication, is furnished for review to members or participants in the work of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). It is to be regarded as fully privileged, and dissemination of the information included herein must be approved by the NCHRP. Prepared for The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Council National Research Council Prepared By Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage October 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SPONSORSHIP This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research team. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15, by Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage. Margaret Slater, AICP, of Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) was principal investigator for this project and led the preparation of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Harrisville Mill Village Historic District
    ?Ft Foim 10.900.. 0MB No.1024-0016 p.tZ Eip. 10-31.44 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service FwNPSuseordy National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form Continuation sheet 3 item number 7 Page 4 - On soS streets, the sequences of odd and even street numbers do not strictly correspond to each other for example., on East Avenue, number 18 is opposite number 47. In the inventory, entries have been arranged in.numerical order, without regard for the actual physical contiguity of buildings on the street. Entries for buildings or structures without address numbers Universalist Church, Harrisville Mill Dam, etc. have been placed under street headings in the same sequence in which they appear on the street. New Village The New Village *is a group of 22 neo-Georgian single-family dwellings erected in 1918 by the Stillwater Company as housing for Harrisville Mill employees. They were all designed by Providence architects Jackson, Robertson and Adams. All have 2 stories, rectangular-block massing, a 5-bay facade, a central entrance, and a side porch, and all originally had clapboards. The houses were differentiated only by variations in roof forms and entrance enframements. Subsequent additions and changes in wall cover and porches have created greater differences than were originally intended but the buildings still have strong similarities and visual unity. New Village houses are located on Burrill Road, North Hill Road numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8,10, 12, Park Avenue numbers 2, 4, 6, 8; and Steere Street numbers 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17.
    [Show full text]