Historic Asset Management A Decision Support Process for Balanced Consideration of Mission Utility, Historic Value, and Facility Condition

Transcription

1 Historic Asset Management A Decision Support Process for Balanced Consideration of Mission Utility, Historic Value, and Facility Condition Joe Lockerd; Cardno TEC Kurt Schweigert; Cardno TEC Adriane Fowler Truluck; AECOM

2 Presentation Agenda Historic Asset Management Process (HAMP) Project Background and Introduction Goals and Objectives Methodology and Data Requirements HAMP Data Compilation Tools HAMP Implementation Tools Process Description Expanding the Process to Include Additional Metrics

3 Background and Introduction Commander, Navy Region Hawaii (CNRH): Administers over 2,500 individual facilities Must meet evolving mission requirements and provide historic resource stewardship Is challenged by: Demanding and changing mission requirements Aging infrastructure (including many historic facilities) Diminishing budgets

4 Background and Introduction CNRH is meeting these challenges through the HAMP, which: Formalizes cultural resources considerations in the planning process Is a process and series of tools Considers historic landscape Supports stakeholder understanding Does not replace the section 106 consultation process

5 Stakeholder Involvement HAMP involved the Historic Preservation Partners during development: The National Park Service The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The National Trust for Historic Preservation The Office of Hawaiian Affairs The Historic Hawaii Foundation State Historic Preservation Division This involvement created: Buy in for the process A foundation for common understanding during future consultations

6 Award Winning Approach to Asset Management HAMP was recognized with a Preservation Commendation at Historic Hawaii Foundation s May 11, 2012 Preservation Honor Awards Ceremony for: outstanding efforts to integrate preservation with facilities planning.

7 Goals and Objectives Establish a formal process for integrating historic resource stewardship with Installation Mission Integrate historic landscape considerations into asset management and project planning Provide a balanced consideration of mission, historic rank, and facility condition Establish a database to facilitate both planning and compliance with the NHPA Support preparation of Installation Development Plans, Area Development Plans, and Regional Integration Plans

8 Process Overview

9 Methodology and Data Requirements HAMP is based on three key facility rankings: Historic Rank Facility Condition Rank Mission Rank These measures are combined to balance preservation and mission readiness goals Developed using existing information and new Cultural Landscape Reports

10 Scope of CLRs Project study area: Navy installations throughout Hawaii (PHNC, PMRF, and Outlying Areas) Fulfilled NPS format, standards, and guidelines expected by Historic Preservation Partners Drew from ICRMPs, Baseline Analysis, Cold War Inventories and Historic Facilities Database Documented and compared physical history, existing conditions Defined preliminary statements and periods of significance. Assessed historic integrity of the landscape Established treatment guidelines and recommendations for stewardship of historic landscape features Provided findings and analysis data in a format customized to support the HAMP

11 CLR Accomplishments Encompassed 30 square miles of complexes and facilities, and thousands of landscape features, making it one of the largest CLRs ever completed Fulfilled goals of Historic Preservation Partners for comprehensive analysis, evaluation, and stewardship Provided Navy users with detailed documentation of the historic landscape for day-to-day use in compliance, operations and maintenance Created a customized and defensible analysis to identify historic landscape qualities Provided HAMP numeric values for a comparable measure of historic landscape and character areas

12 CLR Analysis Installations were divided into character areas as primary analysis units, based on characterdefining features 100 character areas defined, based on over 2,000 historic landscape features inventoried According to NPS, a character area is defined by the physical qualities of a landscape and the type and concentration of cultural resources. Character areas are based on the existing condition of the characteristics and features that define the significance of a landscape.

13 CLR Analysis Historic Qualities Assessment Unique customized analysis to provide CLR findings in quantitative format to feed the HAMP analysis Numeric values assignedfor qualities of the landscape to form the HAMP historic ranking: Historical Association - Association of character area with a period of significance based on surviving historic features Concentration - Relative number of historic features within character area compared to all other character areas Recognized Historic Value - Features with recognized historic value (NHL, National Register, other listing, or high category level) Visual Intactness - Overall visible condition of the landscape s physical fabric

14 CLR Analysis Integrity Assessment Documented for the installation as a whole at the character area level Assessment uses National Register of Historic Places seven aspects of integrity, compares existing vs. historic condition Character areas are assessed for degree of historic integrity: high, moderate, low, or none

15 CLR Landscape Treatment Treatment Approach The preferred treatment was based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Appropriate for historic landscapes with ongoing active use Treatment Guidelines The guidelines establish general principles for installation-wide stewardship. Treatment Prioritization Based on U.S. Army Corps Integrated Landscape Approach Mission-essential features are given a higher priority than non-mission-essential features. Treatment Recommendations Detailed recommendations for treatment and stewardship of cultural landscape features

16 Historic Rank Represents a facility s historic value A historic rank of High, Medium, or Low based on three parameters: The Relative Historic Significance Score Property s eligibility for nomination to the NRHP The Property Setting Score - Ability of property setting to represent the sense of historic place The Character Area Cluster Score - Ability of property to influence significance of the Character Area itself and all adjacent Character Areas

17 Facility Condition Rank Represents facility condition Derived from the Navy condition ratings where each facility is given a rating (Excellent, Good, Fair, Marginal, Poor, Very Poor, and Failing) Four composite HAMP rankings were derived (Good, Fair, Poor, and Failing).

18 Mission Rank Represents relative importance of facilities to current and projected mission functions Based on the Navy Mission Dependency Index (MDI) MDI represents a prioritization of facilities to identify security and vulnerability issues Navy assign an MDI in a five-level rating (Critical, Significant, Relevant, Moderate, and Low) These are reduced to three composite HAMP rankings ( High, Medium, and Low)

19 Good Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition Failing Condition Good Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition Failing Condition Good Condition Fair Condition Poor Condition Failing Condition Data Compilation Tools: HAMP Matrix The matrix is based on the three key facility rankings: Historic Rank Facility Condition Rank Mission Rank High Mission Rank Medium Mission Rank Low Mission Rank High Hist. Rank Medium Hist. Rank Low Hist. Rank Not Historical

20 Data Compilation Tools: Stewardship Management Zones (SMZ) Spatial zones of historic landscape integrity Delineated to provide a landscape context to historic facilities SMZ delineation relied on Cultural Landscape Reports A Historic Qualities Assessment provided a set of weighted criteria to identify where particular preservation values and historic qualities are present in the cultural landscape

21 Data Compilation Tools: HAMP Database Compiled as a single source of asset management information: Facility data from Navy s Facility Database, for example: Facility number Current use Square footage Condition rating Mission dependency index HAMP data, for example: Stewardship Management Zone HAMP condition rank HAMP mission rank HAMP historic rank Period of Significance Matrix number

22 HAMP Implementation Tools: Decision Trees Process flow charts established to guide planners Step-by-step approach to consider the most appropriate facilities or location Individual flow charts for three project types Footprint Reduction Rehabilitation New Construction Repair and maintenance projects: No decision tree because projects are site-specific and an alternatives siting analysis is not relevant

23 HAMP Implementation Tools: Decision Trees Footprint Reduction Identify reduction needs Guiding Principles 1. Reuse of historic facilities should be considered first. 2. Cultural Resources Staff will evaluate cumulative historic impact. 3. Facilities identified as "not surveyed" for NRHP eligibility should be considered as potential candidiates for footprint reduction prior to selecting an eligible property. Survey should be performed prior to listing a "not surveyed" facility as a potential footprint reduction candidate. Step 1: Query the HAMP Database for a facility with a Matrix number of 40, Step 3: Query the HAMP Step 4: Query the HAMP Step 2: Query Step 5: Query Step 6: Query Step 7: Query the HAMP the HAMP the HAMP the HAMP Database for a Database for a No Database for a No No No Database for a No Database for a No Database for a No facility with a facility with a No facility with a facility with a facility with a facility with a Matrix number Matrix number Matrix number Matrix number Matrix number Matrix number of 37-39, 41, of 25-27, 29, of 28, of of of Step 8: Query the HAMP Database for a facility with a Matrix number of 1-6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Compile a list of candidate structures based on hierarchy of choices in Steps 1 through 8.

24 Decision Tree Guiding Principles Facilities with high historic value and high mission rank should be considered for rehabilitation to ensure preservation Facilities with low mission utility are better candidates for footprint reduction Rehabilitation of historic properties is preferable to new construction New construction in historic areas should be guided by potential impact to historic landscape features New construction should only occur after all options for rehabilitation have been considered

25 Decision Tree Guiding Principles (continued) New construction should seek to locate new structures at former building footprints as appropriate infill Avoidance is recommended for non-sympathetic alterations removal of historic landscape features intrusive construction in primary SMZs Footprint reduction is preferred in tertiary SMZs over primary or secondary SMZs Rehabilitation projects are preferable in primary and secondary SMZs New construction is preferred in tertiary SMZs

26 HAMP Implementation Tools: HAMP Database User Interface (HAMPdb) Allows users to search for candidate facilities Decision Tree steps are imbedded in program logic Generates output that supports completion of Management Decision Forms Provides three types of queries: Single Facility Query: Search for a specific Facility Number within an SMZ Decision Tree Query: Search for facilities by Project Type and Decision Tree step Flexible Query: Search by SMZ, square feet needed, and HAMP Matrix Number

27 HAMP Implementation Tools: HAMP Database User Interface (HAMPdb)

28 HAMP Implementation Tools: Management Decision Forms (MDF) Useful in each phase of project development from planning to project execution Provides documentation of: Project planner recommendations Alternatives considered (which can be used to support NEPA compliance) Iterative cultural resources staff review and project proponent responses Decision tree steps taken during evaluation process Asset management decisions

29 HAMP Implementation Tools: Management Decision Forms (MDF) MDF is a living form - once tested with real projects, will likely be updated/revised The MDF has two parts and multiple pages MDF Part I Project Decision Summary and Candidate List Page 1: Project background and requirements, Preferred SMZs, and Summary of HAMP analysis Page 2: Project review and approval by cultural resources staff

30 HAMP Implementation Tools: Management Decision Forms (MDF)

31 HAMP Implementation Tools: Management Decision Forms (MDF) MDF Part II Facility Information and Review Completed for each candidate facility Used to record facility-specific information regarding how mission and project requirements are met Proposed Facility Information is populated using the HAMPdb query results Contains a facility review section to be completed by cultural resources staff Documents candidate facility NRHP eligibility Documents if proposed action would have an adverse effect or fall under Programmatic Agreements

32 HAMP Implementation Tools: Management Decision Forms (MDF)

33 HAMP Implementation Tools: HAMP Dataset and GIS A collection of graphics and tables compiled from other sources (e.g., CLRs, ICRMPs, GIS) Includes hundreds of GIS maps showing: SMZ boundaries Historic overlays from various periods of significance Historic landscape features Assists project planners in understanding the historic landscape of a proposed location Reference for project development documentation

34 Action Steps: 1. Identify project requirements 2. Select appropriate Decision Tree for the project type 3. Start MDF Part I, for the project 4. Query the HAMPdb according to the Decision Tree 5. Review HAMPdb query report for candidate facilities 6. Consult with CR staff on candidate facilities 7. Create MDF Part II for each candidate facility 8. Submit project documentation to CR staff for review 9. Complete overall project approval and include with project execution documents

35 Incorporating Additional Metrics Other asset management decision risk/opportunity factors to consider for expanded HAMP: Energy Efficiency Measure relative contribution of facilities to energy conservation goals Financial Index relative cost of sustainability, renovation, and maintenance Compliance Risk Factor consideration of compliance factors such as permits and increased likelihood of NOVs Natural Infrastructure Value value of property as encroachment buffers, critical habitat, or viewshed Climate Change Vulnerability Index a measure of potential for a facility to be affected by climate change

36 Questions / Discussion Contact: Joe.Lockerd@cardnotec.com Kurt.Schweigert@cardnotec.com Adriane.Truluck@aecom.com