SHPO Review Clause Samples

The SHPO Review clause establishes the requirement for a project or undertaking to be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to assess potential impacts on historic properties. In practice, this means that before certain activities—such as construction, renovation, or land development—can proceed, relevant documentation and plans must be submitted to the SHPO for evaluation and approval. This process ensures that any effects on historic or culturally significant sites are identified and addressed, thereby protecting heritage resources and ensuring compliance with preservation laws and regulations.
POPULAR SAMPLE Copied 1 times
SHPO Review. From time to time, in order to ensure that actions of Region 5 professional staff retain a high level of professionalism, the SHPO may request that particular documents be subjected to external professional peer review. This can be done through the review/inspection process or through the normal Section 106 procedures. Region 5 may prepare peer review guidelines in consultation with the SHPO or may elect to accept existing peer review guidelines proffered by the SHPO. The SHPO and Region 5 agree that peer review shall not delay the implementation of undertakings.
View SourceView Similar (3)
SHPO Review. Within 30 days after the semi-annual reports are issued, DoD will meet with each SHPO to discuss the semi-annual reports, PA implementation, and any adjustments that may be needed. At the meeting with Guam SHPO, DoD will also make available a summary of GHPI site numbers and locations associated with activities during the reporting period.
View SourceView Similar (4)
SHPO Review. The following undertakings will be reviewed by the SHPO. These activities include those that have the potential to have adverse effects the integrity of historic properties and which may require mitigation. that will require the review of the axe:
View Source
SHPO Review. BLM will conduct consultation with SHPO only, in the following situations: (a) land exchanges, land sales, Recreation and Public Purpose leases, and transfers (b) undertakings affecting National Register eligible or listed properties (c) when BLM professional staff lack the appropriate regional experience or professional expertise, and until performance is mutually acceptable to the BLM DPO and SHPO (d) when BLM’s cultural heritage specialists wish to bring a particular project to the attention of SHPO
View Source
SHPO Review. If the Corps determines that an undertaking does not meet the Criteria for Internal Review pursuant to Stipulation VII. A, and/or if Corps Qualified Staff determines that cultural resources are present within the APE and may be affected by the undertaking, the Corps shall submit the following documentation to the SHPO for review and comment pursuant to the timeframes provided in Stipulation IV.D. 1. Identification and evaluation: documentation of the Corps’ efforts to identify historic properties and evaluate properties within the APE, pursuant to Stipulation VI(A). 2. Determination of eligibility: documentation of the Corps’ determination of eligibility for all resources identified within the APE, prepared pursuant to Stipulation VI.D or VI.E.
View Source

Related to SHPO Review

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Position Review 18.3.1 Either an employee or the University may request an audit of the duties and responsibilities of a position he/she/it believes is not allocated to the proper class. Employees requesting such an audit are expected to notify the Union at the time of their request. 18.3.2 Job audits will be performed and reclassification decisions will be made by the University’s Human Resources Services staff according to the University’s Classification Process. The affected employee(s) and the Union will be notified of the outcome of a job audit in writing. In the event of a reallocation that results in removal of a position from the bargaining unit, the written notice will describe the manner in which the bargaining unit work is being distributed, including the classification and position(s) of any employee(s) absorbing work from the reallocated position. 18.3.3 If an employee disagrees with a classification decision made by the Human Resources staff, the employee may request review of that decision through the Director of OFM/State Human Resources within 30 (thirty) calendar days of receiving the final allocation decision from the University. Should the employee disagree with the Director’s decision, the employee may further appeal the matter to the Washington Personnel Resources Board within 30 (thirty) calendar days of being provided the written decision of the Director. The Board will render a decision, which will be final and binding. Decisions regarding appropriate classification will be reviewed in accordance with this Section and will not be subject to the grievance procedure specified in Article 40 of this Agreement.