The Michigan Historical Preservation Act, specifically MCL 399.201 et seq., outlines the framework for identifying, protecting, and preserving historical and cultural resources within the state. A key aspect of this act involves the designation of historic sites and districts. When a property is proposed for designation as a historic site, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) conducts a review process. This review typically involves assessing the property’s architectural, historical, or archaeological significance based on established criteria, often aligning with the National Register of Historic Places criteria. Following the SHPO’s recommendation, the Michigan Historical Commission makes the final determination. The Act also mandates consideration of cultural heritage in state-funded projects, requiring an inventory and assessment of potential impacts on historic properties. Furthermore, it establishes provisions for the preservation of archaeological sites, including regulations on excavation and the handling of artifacts, recognizing the unique challenges in protecting submerged cultural resources in the Great Lakes. The process for delisting a historic site also involves specific procedures and criteria, ensuring that designations are based on enduring significance.

The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) Chapter 399, specifically the Michigan Cultural Heritage Protection Act, outlines the framework for protecting archaeological sites and artifacts within the state. This act grants the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) significant authority in identifying, evaluating, and recommending sites for preservation. When a proposed project, such as a new commercial development near the Grand River in Michigan, might impact a potentially significant archaeological resource, a review process is mandated. This review typically involves consultation between the developer, the SHPO, and potentially other state or federal agencies depending on the project’s scope and funding. The SHPO’s role is to assess the potential adverse effects on cultural resources. If the SHPO determines that the project could negatively impact a site of historical or archaeological significance, they will recommend mitigation measures. These measures can range from detailed archaeological surveys and data recovery (excavation) to project redesign or avoidance. The Act emphasizes the importance of balancing development with the preservation of Michigan’s rich cultural heritage. Specifically, MCL 399.707 details the requirement for consultation and the SHPO’s role in advising on the potential impact of undertakings on cultural resources. The question focuses on the procedural step following the identification of a potential impact, which is the SHPO’s advisory role and the subsequent need for further assessment and mitigation planning before project approval. The correct response reflects the statutory obligation for consultation and the SHPO’s function in advising on mitigation strategies.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic properties within the state. When a project potentially impacts a historic property listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), federal undertakings requiring Section 106 review often involve consultation. In Michigan, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) acts as a key liaison in this process. The Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) also provides a framework for environmental review, which can encompass cultural resources. However, the direct consultation and agreement process for federal undertakings impacting historic properties, as mandated by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR Part 800), typically involves the SHPO in developing Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) or Programmatic Agreements (PAs) when adverse effects cannot be avoided. While the State Historic Preservation Officer is integral to the consultation process, the ultimate authority for approving or disapproving a project’s impact on historic resources, especially when federal funding or permits are involved, rests with the federal agency undertaking the project, in consultation with the SHPO and potentially the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The Michigan State Historic Preservation Officer’s role is advisory and facilitative, aiming to reach consensus on mitigation measures. Therefore, the SHPO’s formal approval of an MOA or PA is a critical step in the Section 106 process, signifying agreement on how to resolve adverse effects.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in administering federal and state historic preservation programs. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Michigan has its own enabling legislation, the Michigan History and Museum Act (MCL 399.701 et seq.), which complements federal efforts. When a proposed federal undertaking may affect a historic property located in Michigan, the SHPO is consulted. The process typically involves identifying historic properties, assessing the effects of the undertaking, and, if adverse effects are identified, seeking ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate them through consultation. This consultation involves the federal agency, the SHPO, and potentially other parties, such as the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the property owner. The goal is to reach an agreement on how to manage the impact. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is often used to document this agreement. The question asks about the primary entity responsible for coordinating this consultation process within Michigan for federal undertakings. While the federal agency initiates the process and the ACHP can be involved, the SHPO is the state-level authority tasked with advising on and coordinating these efforts, ensuring compliance with both federal and state preservation laws.

The Michigan Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, specifically MCL 399.701 et seq., provides a framework for identifying, protecting, and preserving significant cultural resources within the state. When a proposed development project in Michigan might impact a property listed on the Michigan Register of Historic Sites or a property that meets the criteria for listing, a careful assessment of potential adverse effects is mandated. This assessment typically involves consultation between the developer, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and potentially other stakeholders. The goal is to mitigate or avoid any substantial alteration to the historic character of the property. Section 399.705 of the Act outlines the process for review and the responsibilities of various parties. If a property is determined to be significant and is threatened by a project, the SHPO will work with the project proponent to develop mitigation strategies. These strategies can range from redesigning the project to implementing specific preservation measures during construction. The Act emphasizes a collaborative approach to balance development needs with the imperative of preserving Michigan’s heritage. The concept of “adverse effect” is central to this process, encompassing destruction, alteration, or even incompatibility with the historic character of a site. Therefore, understanding the criteria for significance and the procedural steps for review under the Michigan Cultural Heritage Preservation Act is crucial for anyone involved in development projects that might affect historic properties in Michigan.

The Michigan Historic Preservation Act, specifically MCL 399.701 et seq., outlines the framework for identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic properties within the state. When a proposed undertaking by a state agency or a political subdivision might affect a property listed or eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Sites, a consultation process is mandated. This process is designed to assess the potential impact and explore alternatives to mitigate or avoid adverse effects. The law requires the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), who is typically housed within the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) or a similar state department responsible for historic preservation, to be consulted. The consultation aims to determine if the undertaking will cause an “adverse effect” on the historic property. An adverse effect is defined broadly to include alteration, destruction, or demolition, but also encompasses things like visual intrusion or neglect that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant characteristics. The process involves a review of the proposed undertaking, the historic property’s significance, and the potential impacts. If an adverse effect is determined, the parties involved, including the agency, the SHPO, and potentially other stakeholders, engage in further consultation to develop mitigation measures. These measures could include modifications to the undertaking, documentation of the historic property before alteration, or other actions to preserve its historic character. The question tests the understanding of this procedural requirement for state-level undertakings affecting historic properties in Michigan, emphasizing the mandatory consultation with the SHPO.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic properties. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This process involves consultation with the SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) when applicable, and other stakeholders. For properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, adverse effects must be avoided or mitigated. In Michigan, the state historic preservation program, administered by the SHPO, implements these federal requirements and also manages state-level historic preservation efforts, including the Michigan Register of Historic Sites. When a state agency in Michigan proposes an undertaking that might affect a property on the Michigan Register, or a property that is potentially eligible for the National Register, the agency must consult with the SHPO. This consultation aims to determine if the undertaking will have an adverse effect. If an adverse effect is determined, mitigation measures are developed and implemented, often through Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) or Programmatic Agreements (PAs). These agreements outline specific actions to be taken, such as detailed recording, archaeological data recovery, or public interpretation, to offset the negative impact on the historic resource. The primary goal is to balance development needs with the preservation of Michigan’s significant cultural heritage.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in identifying, evaluating, and nominating properties to the National Register of Historic Places, as well as state registers. Under Michigan law, specifically the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) and related statutes governing historic preservation, state agencies undertaking projects that may affect historic properties are required to consult with the SHPO. This consultation process is designed to assess potential adverse effects and to develop mitigation strategies. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has the authority to review proposed undertakings by state agencies that could impact properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Sites. This review ensures compliance with federal mandates like Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which is often mirrored in state-level procedures, and state-specific preservation goals. The process involves evaluating the significance of the historic property and the nature of the proposed undertaking to determine if there will be an adverse effect. If an adverse effect is determined, the SHPO will work with the agency to identify alternatives or mitigation measures to minimize or avoid the harm. This collaborative approach aims to balance development needs with the imperative to preserve Michigan’s cultural heritage.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in administering federal and state historic preservation programs. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800), federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Michigan has its own enabling legislation, such as the Michigan Historic Preservation and Development Act (MCL 399.701 et seq.), which often complements federal requirements. When a federal undertaking might affect a property listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or a property of state or local significance, the SHPO is typically consulted. This consultation process, often referred to as Section 106 review, aims to identify potential adverse effects and explore mitigation measures. The SHPO provides technical assistance and expertise to federal agencies, state and local governments, and property owners. In this scenario, the SHPO’s primary responsibility is to advise on the eligibility of the structure for historic designation and to consult on potential impacts, ensuring compliance with both federal and state preservation laws. The Michigan Historical Commission, established under MCL 399.151, also has a role in designating state historic sites and advising on preservation matters, often working in conjunction with the SHPO. The question probes the administrative authority and consultative role of the SHPO in a project involving a potentially historic structure in Michigan, requiring an understanding of how federal mandates interact with state-level preservation bodies.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 201, establishes the framework for addressing environmental contamination and its impact on cultural resources. When a property owner in Michigan discovers potential archaeological artifacts during a renovation project, the initial step involves understanding the legal obligations under NREPA and potentially other state and federal statutes like the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). NREPA’s Part 721, regarding historic properties, mandates that any person who has reason to believe they have discovered a historic or archaeological site must report it to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) within a specified timeframe, typically 24 hours if the discovery is made during construction or demolition. Failure to report can result in penalties. The SHPO then assesses the significance of the discovery. If deemed significant, mitigation measures, which could include archaeological investigation, documentation, or preservation, may be required before the project can proceed. This process aims to balance development needs with the protection of Michigan’s cultural heritage. The specific reporting requirement and subsequent actions are governed by the details of the discovery and the property’s location within potentially significant historical or archaeological areas.

The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) Section 399.1001 et seq., often referred to as the Michigan Cultural Heritage Act, establishes a framework for the protection and management of cultural heritage properties within the state. Specifically, MCL Section 399.1004 outlines the criteria for designating properties as historically significant. This section requires that a property must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Furthermore, it must either be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history, or be associated with the lives of persons significant in the past, or embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. In the scenario presented, the abandoned iron foundry, while exhibiting potential for adaptive reuse and possessing a unique industrial aesthetic, lacks a direct, documented association with a nationally significant historical event or a person of broad historical importance in Michigan’s development. Its primary significance lies in its representation of a specific industrial period and local economic history, rather than a broader contribution to the state’s narrative or the lives of widely recognized historical figures. Therefore, while it may hold local historical interest, it does not meet the stringent criteria for state-level cultural heritage designation under MCL 399.1004 due to the absence of a strong, demonstrable link to events or individuals of significant, broad-ranging historical impact as defined by the statute.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in the identification, evaluation, and protection of historic properties within the state. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Michigan’s own historic preservation laws, such as the Michigan History and Arts Act (MCL 399.301 et seq.), further delineate the responsibilities and procedures for state agencies and local governments. When a proposed project, such as the construction of a new highway bypass in Washtenaw County, might affect a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the SHPO must be consulted. This consultation process is designed to identify potential adverse effects and to develop mitigation measures. Adverse effects can include demolition, alteration, or physical disturbance of a historic property. The goal is to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these effects. In this scenario, the bypass construction would likely involve significant ground disturbance and potential visual impacts on the historic agricultural landscape. The SHPO would review the project plans, assess the eligibility of the landscape for the National Register, and consult with the project proponent and potentially other stakeholders to determine appropriate mitigation. Mitigation might involve archaeological surveys, documentation of the affected landscape, or modifications to the project design to lessen the impact. The SHPO’s role is advisory, but their recommendations carry significant weight in the federal and state review process. The question probes the understanding of the SHPO’s primary function in such a scenario, which is to provide expert guidance and facilitate consultation to ensure compliance with preservation laws and to advocate for the protection of cultural resources.

The Michigan Historic Preservation Act, Public Act 161 of 1970, as amended, establishes the framework for identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic properties within the state. Section 4(1) of this act outlines the criteria for determining whether a property possesses historical significance. These criteria are designed to ensure a comprehensive assessment, considering a property’s association with significant events or persons, its embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, and its potential to yield important information about history or prehistory. Specifically, the act mandates that a property must be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing on the State Register of Historic Sites, unless it possesses exceptional significance. The assessment involves a review by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and potentially the Michigan Historical Commission. The criteria focus on the property’s intrinsic historical value and its contribution to understanding Michigan’s past, rather than its current economic utility or aesthetic appeal alone.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is the primary state agency responsible for administering federal historic preservation programs within Michigan, as delegated by the National Park Service under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This office plays a crucial role in identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic properties throughout the state. When a project, particularly one involving federal funding or permits, has the potential to affect historic properties, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates a consultation process. This process requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to consult with the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other stakeholders. The goal is to find ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on these resources. Michigan’s own cultural heritage laws often mirror and supplement these federal requirements, providing additional layers of protection for state-level historic sites and artifacts. The SHPO’s involvement is therefore central to ensuring compliance with both federal and state preservation mandates, facilitating a collaborative approach to managing the state’s rich historical and archaeological resources.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in identifying, evaluating, and nominating properties for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and for state historic preservation. Under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and its implementing regulations, federal agencies are required to consult with the SHPO regarding undertakings that may affect historic properties. This consultation process is designed to ensure that the potential impact on cultural heritage is considered and mitigated. The SHPO’s role is advisory and facilitative, providing expertise and guidance to federal agencies, state and local governments, and private citizens. They review project plans, conduct site surveys, and offer recommendations for preservation treatments. While the SHPO does not have direct enforcement authority for federal undertakings, their input is a critical component of the Section 106 review process, influencing decision-making to minimize adverse effects on historic resources. In Michigan, state-level legislation further complements federal mandates, often providing additional protections or processes for state-owned historic properties or those impacted by state-funded projects. The consultation between a federal agency and the SHPO is a key step in determining if a project will have an adverse effect and what measures can be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such effects, thereby upholding the principles of cultural heritage preservation within the state.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in administering federal and state historic preservation programs. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Michigan’s historic preservation law, specifically the Michigan Historic Preservation and Development Act (MCL 399.701 et seq.), complements federal requirements by establishing state-level protections and procedures. When a proposed federal undertaking might affect a property listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the SHPO is consulted. The process involves identifying historic properties, assessing potential adverse effects, and developing mitigation measures. The SHPO’s review is advisory, but its expertise is vital in determining eligibility and recommending appropriate actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts. The question revolves around the SHPO’s specific role in this consultative process, particularly when a property is *not yet* officially listed but is deemed eligible. Eligibility for the National Register is a key determinant for triggering Section 106 review, even without formal listing. Therefore, the SHPO’s determination of eligibility is a critical step in initiating the consultation process. The consultation aims to reach a consensus on how to manage the potential impacts on the historic resource.

The Michigan Aboriginal Indian Cemetery Act, Public Act 161 of 1974, as amended, provides a framework for the protection and preservation of Native American burial sites and associated cultural artifacts within Michigan. This act designates specific procedures for identifying, protecting, and managing these sacred areas. A key aspect of this legislation involves the consultation process with federally recognized Indian tribes and the State Historic Preservation Officer. When a potential Native American burial site is discovered during development or land alteration, the Act mandates notification of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and the relevant tribal historic preservation offices. The process aims to balance development needs with the profound cultural and spiritual significance of these ancestral grounds. Specifically, the Act outlines requirements for archaeological surveys, the reinterment of discovered remains, and the prohibition of disturbing such sites without proper authorization and consultation. Understanding the nuances of this consultation process, including the role of tribal governments in decision-making and the legal ramifications of non-compliance, is crucial for anyone involved in land use or development in Michigan. The Act also emphasizes the importance of respecting tribal sovereignty and cultural practices in the management of these sensitive historical resources.

The Michigan Cultural Heritage Act, Public Act 210 of 1976, as amended, primarily governs the preservation and management of archaeological sites and artifacts within the state. This act establishes a framework for the protection of significant historical and prehistoric resources. It mandates that state agencies, political subdivisions, and any person undertaking an activity funded in whole or in part with state funds must consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before disturbing an archaeological site or removing artifacts. The act also outlines procedures for reporting discoveries, permits for excavation, and penalties for violations. Specifically, it addresses the ownership of artifacts found on state lands, generally vesting ownership in the state. The act also provides for the designation of historic sites and districts. While the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) provides a federal framework for historic preservation, Michigan’s act is the primary state-level legislation for cultural heritage resources. The scenario describes a private developer undertaking an activity on private land that is not federally funded. In Michigan, while there are general property rights considerations, the state’s authority to regulate activities on private land for the purpose of cultural heritage preservation is generally exercised through specific statutes that often require a nexus to public interest, public funding, or direct impact on publicly owned or managed resources. The Michigan Cultural Heritage Act, in its core provisions, focuses on state-funded projects and state lands. Without a direct nexus to state funding, state land, or a specific provision in the act that grants broad regulatory power over private land for cultural heritage purposes independent of these factors, the state’s ability to halt the developer’s activity solely based on potential archaeological findings on private land, under the purview of PA 210, is limited. Therefore, the developer can proceed with their project without requiring a permit under the Michigan Cultural Heritage Act unless specific circumstances, not detailed in the prompt, trigger its provisions.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has specific guidelines for determining eligibility for the State Register of Historic Sites. One key criterion is the association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history. This is often evaluated through a narrative that demonstrates a clear link between the property and historical events or trends. The age of a property is a factor, but not the sole determinant; typically, properties over 50 years old are considered, though exceptions exist for exceptional significance. Architectural significance, relating to design, construction, or craftsmanship, is another crucial element, often assessed through the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. The ability of a property to convey its historical association or architectural integrity is also paramount. In this scenario, the proposed demolition of the 1930s industrial building, while potentially impacting local employment, does not inherently demonstrate a significant contribution to broad historical patterns of Michigan’s industrial development or possess exceptional architectural merit that would automatically warrant its inclusion on the State Register without further detailed historical and architectural research. The lack of a direct, documented association with a pivotal historical event or a unique architectural style that represents a significant period in Michigan’s history, coupled with the absence of a compelling argument for its exceptional significance, means it would likely not meet the primary eligibility criteria for the State Register.

The Michigan Cultural Heritage Act, specifically Public Act 210 of 1984, as amended, governs the preservation and protection of cultural resources within the state. This act empowers local governments to establish historic districts and to enact ordinances that regulate alterations, demolition, and new construction within these districts. A key aspect of this legislation is the requirement for review by a local historic district commission. For any proposed exterior alteration to a property within a designated historic district that affects its historic character, a Certificate of Appropriateness is generally required. This process ensures that proposed changes are compatible with the district’s historic integrity and adhere to established design guidelines. Without this certificate, or if a commission denies it, proceeding with the alteration can lead to legal penalties, including fines and injunctions. The question focuses on the procedural prerequisite for undertaking such alterations, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining official approval before commencing work. This aligns with the act’s intent to provide a structured framework for managing change in historically significant areas, balancing preservation with the rights of property owners.

The Michigan Historic Preservation Act, Public Act 169 of 1970, as amended, establishes a framework for identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic properties within the state. A key aspect of this act involves the process for reviewing proposed undertakings by state agencies or their licensees that might affect properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the State Register of Historic Sites. The law mandates that such agencies must consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before commencing any undertaking. This consultation aims to determine if the undertaking will have an adverse effect on a historic property. If an adverse effect is determined, the agency must consider alternatives to avoid or mitigate the impact. The law also outlines procedures for public notice and comment, and in cases of disagreement, it may involve further review by the Michigan Historical Commission. The core principle is to balance development needs with the preservation of Michigan’s significant cultural and historical resources. The specific requirement for an agency to seek SHPO concurrence before proceeding with an undertaking that could impact a historic property is a fundamental procedural safeguard under this act.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is the designated state agency responsible for administering federal historic preservation programs within Michigan. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. This process involves consultation with the SHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the public. For undertakings that may affect properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the SHPO plays a crucial role in reviewing proposed mitigation measures. These measures can include various strategies aimed at reducing or offsetting adverse effects, such as documentation, salvage archaeology, or adaptive reuse proposals. The SHPO’s review ensures that these mitigation efforts align with established preservation standards and contribute to the understanding and preservation of cultural heritage. The specific legal framework guiding these consultations and mitigation requirements is rooted in federal law, implemented through state-level agreements and guidelines, and often involves detailed archaeological survey reports and treatment plans that must be approved by the SHPO before project commencement.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic properties within the state. Under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its Michigan counterparts, the SHPO is responsible for maintaining the State Historic Register and conducting surveys of historic resources. When a project, particularly one involving federal funding or permits, has the potential to affect historic properties, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates a consultation process. This process involves identifying historic properties, determining their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, and assessing the potential effects of the undertaking. The SHPO, along with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the relevant federal agency, are key participants in this consultation. The goal is to find ways to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on historic properties. In Michigan, the Public Act 161 of 1988, the Michigan History Division Act, further empowers the state archives and historical programs, including those managed by the SHPO, to administer programs related to the preservation of Michigan’s historical and cultural heritage. This includes the management of state-level historic preservation efforts that often align with federal requirements. Therefore, a proposal to demolish a building listed on the Michigan State Historic Register would necessitate consultation with the SHPO to assess its historic significance and explore alternatives to demolition, aligning with both federal and state preservation mandates.

The Michigan Cultural Heritage Law addresses the protection and management of historical resources within the state. A key aspect of this law involves the process for identifying, evaluating, and potentially protecting sites or objects that possess cultural or historical significance. When a proposed development project in Michigan might impact a previously undiscovered archaeological site, the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role. The process typically begins with a review of the project’s potential impact. If the SHPO determines that the project could adversely affect historical or archaeological resources, they will likely recommend further action, which may include an archaeological survey or assessment. The governing statutes and administrative rules, such as those promulgated under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as it applies to state-level undertakings and Michigan’s own Historic Preservation Act, outline the responsibilities of developers and state agencies. This process ensures that potential impacts on cultural heritage are considered and mitigated, often requiring developers to fund or conduct necessary surveys. The question probes the procedural steps and responsible agencies involved when a development might disturb significant cultural resources, specifically in the context of Michigan’s legal framework. The correct answer reflects the standard protocol for such situations, emphasizing the role of the SHPO in initiating and overseeing the necessary steps to assess and protect potential heritage sites.

The Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) Chapter 399, specifically MCL 399.701 et seq., known as the Michigan Cultural Heritage Protection Act, governs the protection of significant cultural resources within the state. This act, alongside federal legislation like the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, establishes a framework for identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic properties. When a proposed undertaking by a federal agency or one that uses federal funding or permits has the potential to affect properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, Section 106 of the NHPA mandates an “undertaking” review process. This process involves consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and often other stakeholders. In Michigan, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), housed within the Michigan State Housing Development Authority, plays a crucial role in this consultation. The question presents a scenario where a state-funded road expansion project in Michigan might impact a historically significant site. While the project is state-funded, if it requires a federal permit (e.g., a wetlands permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) or involves federal funding in any capacity, then Section 106 of the NHPA would be triggered. The crucial element is the nexus to federal involvement. Without such a nexus, the primary governing law would be Michigan’s own cultural heritage statutes. However, the scenario implicitly suggests a potential federal connection through the mention of a significant historical site which often falls under federal register considerations. Therefore, the most appropriate initial step, assuming a potential federal nexus, is to involve the state’s designated historic preservation authority, which is the SHPO in Michigan, to assess the impact and facilitate consultation. This aligns with the cooperative federalism model often employed in cultural resource management, where state agencies act as primary points of contact for federal mandates.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in administering federal and state historic preservation programs. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Michigan has its own enabling legislation, the Michigan Historic Preservation Act (MCL 399.701 et seq.), which mirrors many of the NHPA’s principles and establishes state-level review processes. When a federal undertaking might affect a property listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or on the State Register of Historic Sites, the SHPO, in consultation with the federal agency and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), will review the potential impact. This consultation process aims to identify adverse effects and develop mitigation strategies. In Michigan, the process for determining if a property is eligible for the State Register involves criteria that are consistent with national standards but may also incorporate state-specific significance. The question concerns the authority of the Michigan Historical Commission regarding properties on the State Register. The Michigan Historical Commission, through the State Historic Preservation Office, has the authority to designate properties for the State Register of Historic Sites. This designation process involves nomination, review, and ultimately, listing. Once listed, the properties are afforded a certain level of protection, particularly when state or federal actions may impact them. The Michigan Historical Commission has the power to approve or deny nominations to the State Register of Historic Sites. Furthermore, it can also recommend properties for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The question asks about the commission’s authority concerning properties already on the State Register. While the commission facilitates the process, the actual listing and de-listing of properties from the State Register of Historic Sites are its purview. Specifically, it has the authority to remove properties from the State Register if they no longer meet the criteria for significance or have been destroyed. This is a key aspect of its administrative role in maintaining the integrity of the State Register.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) plays a crucial role in administering federal and state historic preservation programs. When a federal undertaking, as defined by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), might affect a historic property, the SHPO is consulted. This consultation process is mandated to identify potential adverse effects and to explore alternatives that might mitigate or avoid such impacts. The specific procedures and the extent of SHPO involvement are outlined in federal regulations, particularly 36 CFR Part 800, and are further detailed in state-specific guidelines and agreements, such as Programmatic Agreements (PAs) between the SHPO and federal agencies operating within Michigan. The goal is to balance development needs with the imperative to preserve significant cultural resources. The process involves identifying historic properties, assessing their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, determining if the undertaking will have an adverse effect, and if so, developing measures to resolve adverse effects through consultation among the agency official, the SHPO, and potentially other parties like Tribal Historic Preservation Offices or Certified Local Governments. The Michigan Historical Center, which houses the SHPO, serves as the primary state agency responsible for this oversight.

The Michigan Cultural Heritage Preservation Act, Public Act 169 of 1992, provides a framework for identifying, protecting, and preserving cultural resources within the state. A key aspect of this act is the designation of historic sites and districts, which involves a process of nomination, review, and potential listing. When a property is nominated for designation as a historic site under this act, the Michigan Historical Commission, or its designated body, undertakes a review. This review assesses the property’s significance based on criteria related to historical association, architectural merit, and integrity. The act specifies that a property must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to be considered for designation. If a property meets these criteria and is deemed to have statewide significance, it can be recommended for listing on the State Register of Historic Sites. The process involves public notice and an opportunity for comment from interested parties, including property owners. Ultimately, the State Historic Preservation Officer makes the final determination on designation. The scenario describes a property in Ann Arbor that exhibits architectural integrity and a strong association with a significant early 20th-century architect. These factors align with the criteria for statewide significance outlined in the Michigan Cultural Heritage Preservation Act. Therefore, the property would be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Sites.

The Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is responsible for administering programs related to historic preservation within the state, including the review of federal undertakings that may affect historic properties. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) mandates that federal agencies consult with the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) when planning undertakings that might impact properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. In Michigan, this consultation process is further guided by state statutes and the SHPO’s own guidelines. When a federal agency proposes an undertaking, such as the construction of a new highway or the renovation of a federal building, that could affect a historic property, the agency must initiate a Section 106 consultation. This process involves identifying historic properties, assessing the effects of the undertaking, and seeking ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects. The SHPO plays a crucial role in advising on the eligibility of properties for the National Register, reviewing proposed mitigation measures, and facilitating agreements among the involved parties. The specific requirements for consultation and the role of the SHPO are detailed in the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) and the state’s historic preservation statutes, which align with federal mandates under the NHPA. The objective is to balance development with the preservation of Michigan’s rich cultural and historical resources.

The Michigan Historic Preservation Act, specifically Public Act 161 of 1970, as amended, outlines the framework for identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic properties within the state. This act empowers the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to maintain a statewide register of historic sites and structures, known as the State Register of Historic Sites. The process for nominating a property to this register involves several steps, including an initial assessment of its historical significance. Significance is typically evaluated based on criteria established by the National Park Service, which are also adopted by Michigan, relating to association with important persons, events, architectural style, or potential to yield information. Once a nomination is deemed potentially significant, it undergoes a review process that may involve consultation with property owners and relevant local government entities. The final decision on listing rests with the SHPO, following established administrative procedures. Unlike federal historic preservation laws that might involve direct federal funding or mandates for federal undertakings, Michigan’s act focuses on state-level administration and coordination with local efforts. The question probes the specific administrative body responsible for the ultimate decision in the state’s nomination process, which is the SHPO, reflecting the state’s authority in its own historic preservation program.