Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
EVALUATING CULTURAL RESOURCE SIGNIFICANCE:
IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS
SUMMARY The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) contracted with
URS Group, Inc. (URS), to conduct a two-phased study on improving current approaches
to evaluating cultural resource significance (i.e., National Register eligibility) in the con-
text of both transportation projects and compliance with Section 106 of the National His-
toric Preservation Act. The first phase examined current methods used nationwide to
manage and organize cultural resource inventory data and historic contexts. The study
also determined if information technology (IT) applications have been useful in devel-
oping inventories and contexts. Finally, the study provided recommendations regarding
IT applications to improve the development and use of resource inventories and historic
contexts as tools for determining National Register eligibility. The second phase focused
on the development and testing of two prototype IT applications that would streamline
and improve how resources are evaluated for National Register eligibility.
The two prototypes that were fully developed are the Historic Property Screening
Tool (HPST) and the Electronic Cultural Resource Evaluation Library (ECREL). The
HPST is a tool that guides a user through the National Register eligibility evaluation
steps, using the evaluation components of a historic context, as defined in National
Register Bulletin 15 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preser-
vation Planning. The HPST database allows users to select a historic context and the
property type most appropriate to the resource being evaluated. The "registration" cri-
teria for the property type (based in part on aspects of integrity) are then used to deter-
mine National Register eligibility. ECREL is a web-based tool that includes searchable
historic contexts and other documents used in making decisions on National Register
eligibility. Development of this tool involved (1) designing a document profile (i.e.,
index values [metadata] collected for each document), (2) defining acceptable index
values and a keyword baseline, and (3) collecting and scanning paper documents and
loading the documents into the database. Electronic documents were also placed within
the database. State departments of transportation (DOTs), state historic preservation
offices (SHPOs), and cultural resource management (CRM) consultants assisted URS
in the testing and validation of these two tools by using the tools and completing an
evaluation form on each tool.
OCR for page 2
2
The evaluations of ECREL were uniformly positive. Most reviewers felt that ECREL
would benefit all historic preservation professionals. Though ECREL would not in itself
result in an increase in the development of historic contexts, reviewers noted that the
tool would at least result in the production of more useful historic contexts when these
documents were created. The HPST, however, is more problematic. Reviewers all noted
that this tool would not be used without direction and approval from upper management
within agencies. The tool's use requires changes in the existing evaluation processes
used by most states. Further, unless agencies are willing to replace one or more existing
evaluation and reporting requirements with the HPST, historic preservation profession-
als are not likely to use this tool. Most reviewers, nevertheless, felt that the HPST would
be a useful tool, but indicated that more work would be required to refine the tool's fea-
tures and to integrate the tool into current SHPO and DOT processes.
Based on the evaluations of ECREL and the HPST, URS recommends several
options for implementing one or both of these tools:
· ECREL Option 1: Voluntary Implementation. This option involves (1) locat-
ing a host for the ECREL database and website, (2) developing a document sub-
mittal protocol in consultation with the primary parties involved in the Section
106related National Register evaluation process, (3) developing a document load-
ing procedure, (4) advertising the establishment of ECREL, and (5) having state
DOTs, SHPOs, tribal historic preservation offices (THPOs), and consultants volun-
tarily send in electronic versions of documents to the organization maintaining
ECREL.
· ECREL Option 2: National Implementation. This option is the same as Option
1, with the addition of collecting hard copies of documents from SHPOs and DOTs
around the country. This step is recommended because the majority of documents
within states are in a paper, not electronic, format.
· HPST Option 1: Voluntary Implementation. This option involves (1) advertis-
ing the tool nationally and highlighting the utility of this tool, (2) sending HPST
CDs to all DOTs and SHPOs and making the CD available to CRM consultants,
and (3) making the HPST source code available on CD to anyone who wants to
use all or part of the tool in his or her own system.
· HPST Option 2: Pilot Program. This program involves the participation of a
small number of states (involving both the SHPO and DOT of each state) to fully
implement the HPST. States would input existing historic contexts in the HPST and
use the tool in actual project-related National Register evaluations. If possible, this
option would also include using the HPST to create a new historic context from
scratch. It is also recommended that ECREL be integrated into this pilot program,
as the two tools can be used together (e.g., searching ECREL for appropriate
historic contexts and then placing the contexts into the HPST program).
Table 1 shows the pros and cons of each option.
The HPST and ECREL were not created to increase the workload of state and fed-
eral agency staff by adding yet another level of documentation. Rather, these tools will
provide consistency--in terms of the format, presentation, and content of evaluation
documents--that is sorely lacking in current documentation. These tools will also
decrease development and review time for eligibility evaluations because the docu-
mentation levels needed for effective decision making are made explicit and readily
accessible, eliminating extraneous materials often inserted into current documents.
These tools will replace currently used evaluation report formats, forms, and corre-
spondence. The majority of decision-making efforts are documented and captured in a
single format. Also, historic contexts that are developed in the HPST will be no more
OCR for page 3
3
TABLE 1 Pros and cons of ECREL and HPST options
Option Pros Cons
ECREL Option 1 This option requires the least cost There is no mechanism to maintain
and time commitment for an consistency in the format of
organization or agency to host documents placed into ECREL by
ECREL and to develop the users (this option assumes that the
document submittal protocol and organization hosting ECREL is not
loading procedure. reviewing or vetting the format of
documents submitted for
placement into ECREL). As a
result, sharing of information and
data sets may become
problematic.
ECREL Option 2 The format of documents placed This option is the most expensive
with ECREL will be consistent in terms of time and money.
given the control over the
documents obtained from DOTs It may be difficult to get the
and SHPOs. A single organization SHPOs to participate in this effort
or agency will be responsible for given current staff and budgetary
collecting documents and entering cut-backs. The SHPOs may not
them into ECREL. have the resources to assist in the
collection of the documents to be
The resulting electronic library will placed within ECREL.
be much more complete than under
ECREL Option 1. This larger,
more comprehensive library will
encourage greater use of the site
and its adoption by a broader
audience.
HPST Option 1 This option is the least costly. This option does not provide a
strong mechanism to demonstrate
This option provides an easy and the value of this tool to potential
efficient mechanism for distributing users, as the tool has not been
the HPST. implemented in a real-world
setting, such as an SHPO or DOT
office, using real data from the
resource inventories and historic
contexts. As a result, there may be
little interest in the HPST. There is
little evidence that this tool will
actually help potential users in
their day-to-day decision making.
HPST Option 2 This option provides a mechanism This HPST option is the most
to demonstrate the value of this expensive because it requires
tool to potential users, as the tool funding additional SHPO and
will be implemented in a real-world DOT staff and funding an
setting, such as an SHPO or DOT organization to conduct the pilot
office, using real data from the study.
resource inventories and historic
contexts. The results of the pilot This option would require much
study will serve as evidence that more time and effort than HPST
this tool will actually help agencies Option 1 would require.
and the private sector in their day-
to-day decision making.
time consuming (and may be less time consuming) to create than the current method
of compiling information using word processing software. The use of the HPST for
context development also increases the likelihood that the resulting historic context will
contain the information and guidance needed to evaluate National Register eligibility.
If development and testing of these IT tools is to continue, state DOTs, SHPOs, and
organizations such as the Transportation Research Board's Historic and Archaeologi-
cal Preservation in Transportation Committee (ADC50) and the American Association
OCR for page 4
4
of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) will hopefully provide leader-
ship to secure funding to support additional prototype testing and refinement. As the
February 2004 Santa Fe, New Mexico, "Working Conference on Historic Preservation
and Transportation: Enhancing and Streamlining Compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act" illustrated, federal and state agencies clearly want
to move away from a project-by-project approach to embrace new processes that empha-
size examination of issues at a preplanning phase of project development. Tools such
as ECREL and the HPST would greatly assist in supporting preproject planning efforts.
As this study concluded, these tools have been shown to function extremely well and
seem to represent two of the most innovative historic propertybased IT tools yet devel-
oped to achieve environmental streamlining.
The beneficiaries of this paradigm shift--primarily state DOTs and SHPOs--are in
the best position to encourage federal agencies, such as the FHWA, or organizations,
such as AASHTO or the NCHRP, to consider funding a pilot implementation program
for continued prototype testing and refinement. Selected state DOTs and SHPOs should
consider participating in the prototype testing effort. (Based on comments received in
this study, those states might include, but not be limited to, California, Florida, Mary-
land, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, and Washington.)
The authors of this report have come to realize that impediments that prevent these
products from becoming useful tools are institutional, not technological, and will take
institutional leadership to implement. The authors also believe that a pilot implementa-
tion program will show the many benefits of these tools and should be seriously con-
sidered for future national implementation. Long-term implementation has the greatest
potential for success through adoption of a national initiative, such as the FHWA's envi-
ronmental streamlining program. Encouraging agencies to use standardized tools such
as ECREL and the HPST would most successfully be achieved through a combination
of requirements and financial incentives implemented through a national memorandum
of understanding (MOU). (This MOU might be modeled on the MOU signed on Decem-
ber 14, 2001, by 23 state agencies in support of the Efficient Transportation Decision
Making system.) Implementation and ongoing system maintenance, as well as provision
for staff training at state DOT and SHPO offices, could be supported through multiyear
cost-sharing agreements among multiple federal agencies and the states.
