Skip to content

Architectural Resources: desk report

Word file

One row of the risk matrix, CU-02 Architectural Resources, in the Cultural Resources section: what the record holds on it.

A desk review of the record as it stood: not a field survey and not a modelled study.

Information cut-off
2023-08-01

Downloads

This report as a Word file, and the engine's own files for the whole run.

1Finding

UnknownEvidence insufficient to rate; an information request is listed

up to3Resource is present, likely difficult to address

The engine shows this rating as Unknown (up to 3)

The rule

Code computed the rating from the assessor's inputs:

present=unknown -> Unknown (abstain)

Set by the rule

Decision
Abstained (information request)
The engine's reasons
  • Agencies not in the register or the evidence: OHPO
Evidence state
MISSING · no evidence in hand

The assessor's comments

No historic architecture survey or NRHP review is included in the data room. The Phase I cultural resources study excluded above-ground resources such as standing buildings and structures, which a separate study is to address. Four farmsteads are reported on site; their historic status is unknown.

Conclusion withheld

Question
Are there NRHP-listed or eligible architectural resources in or near the Tamsin Ridge site?
Missing evidence
Historic architecture survey or NRHP review; the Phase I study excluded above-ground resources.
Consequence
Rating cannot be set; potential visual or physical effects and any Section 106 or OPSB mitigation are unquantified.
Information request
Provide the separate above-ground resources study, or commission a history/architecture survey to SHPO standards.
Blocks the decision
No

Worst case

If what is pending at the cut-off went badly, the same rule gives a higher rating.

Scenario

Survey finds NRHP-eligible farmsteads or nearby historic properties within or adjoining the site, requiring layout changes, screening and OPSB/SHPO mitigation.

Step still pending
Historic architecture survey and NRHP/Ohio Historic Inventory review
Inputs in the worst case
Extent core · Avoidable partly · Pathway standard · Impact likely yes
The rule on the worst case
point Unknown; worst case: extent=core, avoidable=partly -> 3
Claims that make it plausible
C-5c04b9f1c5, C-87870b48da, C-4892410817

2What the record shows

The five inputs

  • Present: unknown

    No historic architecture survey or NRHP review is in the data room. The Phase I cultural resources study expressly excluded above-ground resources (C-5c04b9f1c5). Farmsteads exist on site (C-87870b48da) but their historic status is not documented.

    Cites C-5c04b9f1c5, C-87870b48da

  • Extent: unknown

    No listed or eligible properties are documented, so position relative to the site is unknown.

    Cites C-5c04b9f1c5

  • Avoidable: unknown

    Cannot be judged without knowing whether historic properties exist.

    Cites C-5c04b9f1c5

  • Pathway: none

    Placeholder because present is unknown.

    Cites no claim.

  • Impact likely: no

    Placeholder because present is unknown.

    Cites no claim.

Supporting statements (3)

Each claim the row cites: the statement in the assessor's words, then the quote the engine found on the page.

  1. C-4892410817

    Cultural resources surveys to SHPO standards must be submitted to the SHPO.

    Quoted from page 1
    Cultural resources surveys to SHPO standards, submitted to the SHPO.

    OPSB Pre-Application Conference Summary - Tamsin Ridge Solar and Storage Project · DR-0026 · Page 1 · 2023-03-28

    Source agency_determination · Claim type regulatory · Polarity neutral · Confidence high · Quote check exact, 100 of 100

    Cited by CU-01 · Filed under CU-01, CU-02

  2. C-5c04b9f1c5

    Above-ground resources such as buildings and structures were outside scope and will be addressed in a separate developer-commissioned study.

    Quoted from page 1
    Above-ground resources, such as standing buildings and structures, were outside its scope and will be addressed in a separate study

    Cultural Resources Literature Review and Phase I Archaeological Survey - Tamsin Ridge · DR-0008 · Page 1 · 2023-06-30

    Source consultant_memo · Claim type data_gap · Polarity neutral · Confidence high · Quote check exact, 100 of 100

  3. C-87870b48da

    The Project Area is approximately 1,265 acres of cropland, hay, woodlots and reclaimed mine land, with four farmsteads.

    Quoted from page 1
    comprises approximately 1,265 acres of cropland, hay, woodlots and reclaimed mine land, with four farmsteads.

    Phase I Environmental Site Assessment - Tamsin Ridge Solar and Storage Project · DR-0012 · Page 1 · 2023-01-27

    Source consultant_memo · Claim type project_fact · Polarity neutral · Confidence high · Quote check exact, 100 of 100

    Filed under EN-01

3Permits and requirements

The requirements tied to the rows of this report, by level. Each quote from dated law is shown with its source, the version in force on the cut-off and the basis for it.

Federal (1)

  • Section 106 consultation

    F-NHPA106 · Lead federal agency with the State Historic Preservation Office (and THPOs)

    Applicability
    Conditional
    Instrument
    National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 (54 U.S.C. 306108); 36 CFR Part 800
    Trigger
    Federal nexus, for example an individual Section 404 permit or federal funding.
    Description

    A federal undertaking (federal permit, funding, license or land) must take into account effects on historic properties.

    Typical timeline

    SHPO/THPO review: if it does not respond within 30 days of receiving a request for review of a finding or determination, the agency official may proceed to the next step or consult the Advisory Council (36 CFR 800.3(c)(4)). Under a Corps nationwide permit, an activity that may have the potential to cause effects to listed or eligible historic properties is not authorized until the Section 106 requirements have been satisfied (general condition 20(a)). Typical: 2 to 4 months for a no-adverse-effect finding once surveys are complete and 6 to 12 months or more if an adverse effect needs a memorandum of agreement (basis: practice, not stated in the sources).

    Verification
    PACK_PENDING_QUALIFIED_REVIEW
    Source
    pack:federal
    In the permit matrix
    F-NHPA106

    Legal basis: 3 quotes from dated law

    Quoted from the law, page 1
    Undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval.

    Source 36CFR800 · page 1 · version 2023-08-01

    Cited for requirement and trigger (federal nexus)

    In force from 2016-12-13 to 2026-10-07

    eCFR versioner: 36 CFR part 800, same text on 2021-10-15, 2022-05-20, 2022-09-12, 2023-04-22, 2023-08-01 and on every amendment date between them; amendment dates 2016-12-13

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

    Quoted from the law, page 126
    No activity is authorized under any NWP which may have the potential to cause effects to properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places until the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) have been satisfied.

    Source 86FR2744 · page 126 · version 2021-01-13

    Cited for trigger and timeline: Corps nationwide permit waits for Section 106

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

    Quoted from the law, page 1
    If the SHPO/THPO fails to respond within 30 days of receipt of a request for review of a finding or determination, the agency official may either proceed to the next step in the process based on the finding or determination or consult with the Council in lieu of the SHPO/THPO.

    Source 36CFR800 · page 1 · version 2023-08-01

    Cited for timeline: SHPO/THPO response period

    In force from 2016-12-13 to 2026-10-07

    eCFR versioner: 36 CFR part 800, same text on 2021-10-15, 2022-05-20, 2022-09-12, 2023-04-22, 2023-08-01 and on every amendment date between them; amendment dates 2016-12-13

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

State (1)

  • Cultural and archaeological resources information in the OPSB application, supported by SHPO-standard archaeology and history/architecture surveys and SHPO review

    OH-HIST · Ohio Power Siting Board (OPSB) for the application content; Ohio History Connection, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), for survey standards and review

    Applicability
    Required
    Instrument
    OAC 4906-4-08(D) (effective 2018-04-26); ORC 149.53; SHPO Archaeology Guidelines (2022) and Guidelines for Conducting History/Architecture Surveys in Ohio (2014); National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 where a federal permit or approval applies
    Trigger
    An OPSB certificate application for a generating facility under OAC Chapter 4906-4 must include cultural and archaeological resources information, and SHPO review follows where a federal permit or approval (Section 106) or a state agency (ORC 149.53) is involved.
    Description

    An OPSB certificate application for a generating facility must map registered landmarks of historic, religious, archaeological or other cultural significance within ten miles of the project area, evaluate the facility's impact on them and describe plans to avoid or mitigate adverse impact (OAC 4906-4-08(D)). SHPO sets the survey standards it reviews: its archaeology guidelines prescribe report formats, and its history/architecture guidelines require a qualified principal investigator for compliance surveys. Section 106 review, in which SHPO takes part, is a routine part of planning for projects with federal funding, permits, licenses or approvals. ORC 149.53 provides, whenever practical, for archaeological and historic survey in planning, including before work on a public improvement begins; SHPO says there is no formal consultation process under it, though its phased approach is typically followed, and the sources do not say whether it reaches a private facility certificated by the OPSB.

    Typical timeline

    Under Section 106 the regulations give SHPO thirty days to respond to submissions that meet 36 CFR 800.11, and incomplete submissions may need further information and analysis (SHPO form instructions). The sources state no period for comment under ORC 149.53, for which SHPO says there is no formal process.

    Version of the law on the cut-off
    As in force from 2023-08-01 (the library text)
    Verification
    PACK_PENDING_QUALIFIED_REVIEW
    Source
    pack:oh.json
    In the permit matrix
    OH-HIST

    Legal basis: 8 quotes from dated law

    Quoted from the law, page 29
    (1) Landmark mapping. The applicant shall indicate, on a map of at least 1:24,000 scale, any formally adopted land and water recreation areas, recreational trails, scenic rivers, scenic routes or byways, and registered landmarks of historic, religious, archaeological, scenic, natural, or other cultural significance within ten miles of the project area.

    Source OAC 4906 4 OPSB generation facility applications · page 29 · version 2023-08-01

    In force from 2018-04-26 to 2024-05-29, section 4906-4-08

    4906-4-08: version effective 2018-04-26; first change after it 2024-05-30 (OPSB Case 21-902-GE-BRO (determination 2023-07-20)), from codes.ohio.gov version history in archive captures (confirmed_two_sources)

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

    Quoted from the law, page 29
    (2) Impacts on landmarks. The applicant shall provide an evaluation of the impact of the proposed facility on the preservation and continued meaningfulness of these landmarks and describe plans to avoid or mitigate any adverse impact.

    Source OAC 4906 4 OPSB generation facility applications · page 29 · version 2023-08-01

    In force from 2018-04-26 to 2024-05-29, section 4906-4-08

    4906-4-08: version effective 2018-04-26; first change after it 2024-05-30 (OPSB Case 21-902-GE-BRO (determination 2023-07-20)), from codes.ohio.gov version history in archive captures (confirmed_two_sources)

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

    Quoted from the law, page 3
    and for such purposes shall, whenever practical, by contract or otherwise provide for archaeological and historic survey and salvage work during the planning phases, before work on a public improvement begins or at other appropriate times;

    Source ORC 149.51 to 149.55 historic preservation · page 3 · version 2023-08-01

    In force from 2015-09-29 to 2026-10-03, section 149.53

    149.53: version effective 2015-09-29, still the current version when the page map was checked (2026-10-03)

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

    Quoted from the law, page 5
    There is no formal process for consulting with SHPO under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 149.53. However, the phased approach indicated above is typically followed.

    Source OHC SHPO archaeology guidelines section fieldwork · page 5 · version 2023-05-31

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

    Quoted from the law, page 4
    The following report formats are required for all archaeology undertakings reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; and Ohio Revised Code (ORC) section 149.53, Archaeological and Historic Survey and Salvage Work.

    Source OHC SHPO archaeology guidelines section report formats · page 4 · version 2022-11

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

    Quoted from the law, page 11
    All surveys under taken for compliance projects and through Certified Local Governments (CLG s) Grants and History Fund Grants must be carried out under the professional direction of a Principal Investigator that meets the established professional qualifications set forth in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archeology and Historic Preservation for a Historian, Architectural Historian, or Historic Preservationist.

    Source OHC SHPO guidelines for conducting history architecture surveys · page 11 · version 2014-11

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

    Quoted from the law, page 1
    Section 106 is a routine part of the planning process for projects that receive federal funding, permits, licenses, or approvals, to ensure that preservation standards are factored into a project before work is authorized to begin.

    Source OHC SHPO about section 106 page · page 1 · version 2023-08-01

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

    Quoted from the law, page 1
    Following our review of the Project Summary Form and its associated documentation, SHPO may request additional information to help us understand your assessment of the project’s effect. The regulations give us thirty days to respond to project submissions that meet all the requirements found at 36 CFR 800.11. Incomplete submissions may require the preparation of additional information and analysis.

    Source OHC SHPO section 106 project summary form instructions · page 1 · version 2022-06-21

    May be cited on the cut-off date.

4What is missing

The information requests the run raised for the rows of this report, by priority: what is missing, what follows from it, and whether it holds up the decision.

High priority (1)

  • IR-ac5fadd7ce · High priority

    Provide the historic architecture survey or nrhp review for the project area, or confirm none exists.

    Missing evidence
    Historic architecture survey or NRHP review
    Consequence
    Architectural Resources is rated on no evidence without it.
    Blocks the decision
    Yes
    Raised by
    completeness

Medium priority (1)

  • IR-9698e54821 · Medium priority

    Are there NRHP-listed or eligible architectural resources in or near the Tamsin Ridge site?

    Missing evidence
    Historic architecture survey or NRHP review; the Phase I study excluded above-ground resources.
    Consequence
    Rating cannot be set; potential visual or physical effects and any Section 106 or OPSB mitigation are unquantified.
    Blocks the decision
    No
    Raised by
    abstention

5Next steps and agencies

Next steps

  • Obtain the separate above-ground resources study or commission a SHPO-standard history/architecture survey.
  • Review Ohio Historic Inventory and NRHP listings within ten miles for the OPSB application.

Agencies

  • OPSB
  • OHPO

6Basis and limits

This report is a desk review of the documents quoted above, as the engine read them for an information cut-off of 2023-08-01.

It is not a field survey and not a modelled study: this review made no site visit and ran no acoustic, hydraulic or other model. Where the record is silent, the report says what is missing; it does not fill the gap.

Every statement, figure and quote is the engine's record as written. The headings and connecting words are fixed text of this room, the same in every report.

Versions and data hashes

As the engine and the exporter recorded them. Hashes are SHA-256.

Information cut-off
2023-08-01
Engine version
2.11.0
Prompt version
2026-11-08.1
Rows pack
rows.json sha256 a018ecd7e4703bc1
Federal pack
federal.json sha256 8841c555ff35d20b
State pack
oh.json sha256 d4780705e1f18d09
Local pack
oh_carroll_county.json sha256 905cd3308848e7e8
Data room manifest
0c7e80d0ad17d1e3ed4060b9702e5b1905060ae2896e9aad796a57b590005832
Audit chain
valid (19 events)
QA status
PASS_WITH_WARNINGS
Rendered at
2026-11-10T15:42:40+00:00
Run record (annex)
66fca2c4c0bfa90df1e8efb79c0d2f426536b41f50a6a9b6869dd85e4554fd50
Legal source index
6974703924a38a8e90717222e31e444b8e540aca9b6cec809ad4ddc5b0691ca9
Exporter
Prism/room/exporter 1.4.0

Prism desk report · engine 2.11.0 · prompts 2026-11-08.1 · information cut-off 2023-08-01

Lumerian Labs 2026