Click for next page ( 22

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 21
21 Obtaining support of upper agency management in the the majority of documents within states are in a paper, use of these tools; not electronic, format. Shifting some agency activities away from project- Funds would be needed for SHPOs and DOT staff to specific actions to preproject planning efforts; participate in this effort and to pay for the collection Replacing existing reporting formats; and and scanning of documents. The estimated cost of com- Training staff and consultants in the use of the new pleting this option is about $200,000. This includes the formats. cost of sending personnel to each state (other than those that participated in the prototype) for 23 days to work These actions are expanded upon below. with CRM staff to collect, copy, and fill out the cover sheet for the documents to be scanned. The copied doc- uments would be sent to a central location for scanning. Implementing ECREL and the HPST (The actual cost to scan, index, and convert documents to searchable PDFs is estimated at $0.075/page for Based on the evaluations of ECREL and the HPST, URS more than 10,000 pages and $0.10/page for less than recommends several options for implementing one or both of 10,000 pages.) these tools. Table 1 (on page 3) shows the pros and cons of each option. Funding is clearly a key impediment to implementing either of these two options. Engaging institutional and indi- vidual leaders is therefore critical in obtaining funding for the ECREL implementation of this tool. These institutional leaders include Although ECREL must be hosted by an application ser- the FHWA, AASHTO, the NCSHPO, and the National Asso- ciation of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO). vice provider (ASP) (which could be a commercial vendor) Key individuals within these organizations who would need or by a government agency, URS recommends two options to be involved in this effort include the FHWA's historic for implementing ECREL: preservation officer, the executive director of the NCSHPO, the president of NATHPO, the director of AASHTO's environ- ECREL Option 1: Voluntary Implementation. This mental programs, and the chair of AASHTO's Standing option involves (1) locating a host for the ECREL data- Committee on the Environment. base and website, (2) developing a document submittal Possible funding sources include transportation enhance- protocol in consultation with the primary parties involved ment funds or the FHWA's stewardship and streamlining in the Section 106related National Register evaluation program funds. Sources that may be more readily available process, (3) developing a document loading procedure, are project-specific funds. Some state DOTs direct project (4) advertising the establishment of ECREL, and (5) hav- funds toward the development of planning tools that have a ing state DOTs, SHPOs, THPOs, and consultants volun- direct link to project needs, so using some of these funds for tarily send in electronic versions of documents to the a planning tool such as ECREL would not be an unusual step. organization maintaining ECREL. For example, funds for the treatment of a category of historic To implement this option, funding is needed to pay for property within a project area might be directed toward the col- an entity to host ECREL and to develop a document sub- lection of historic contexts nationwide that relate to this prop- mittal protocol and a document loading procedure. Also, erty type, and the contexts would be placed within ECREL. given the Phase 1 findings, some type of training on the Some project funding could also be used to support the main- importance of using historic contexts for making deci- tenance of ECREL. Several DOTS already assist in updating sions on resource significance is highly recommended. and maintaining statewide GIS databases. ECREL could be Current use of historic contexts is infrequent (with the an added component of these databases. exception of a few states), and new agency and consul- Another source of funding is other federal agencies. The tant staff most likely have no background in their use. development of ECREL will benefit all other agencies that Training will likely increase the use of ECREL and his- make determinations of National Register eligibility in the toric contexts in general. Therefore, a mechanism for context of the Section 106 process. These agencies include this training needs to be identified. One option is to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Army Corps include such training in the National Highway Insti- of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Emergency Management tute's soon-to-be-developed historic preservation train- Administration (FEMA), and several land-managing agen- ing course. cies such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the ECREL Option 2: National Implementation. This NPS, and the National Forest Service (NFS). Each of these option is the same as Option 1, with the addition of col- agencies has a stake in the development and implementation lecting hard copies of documents from SHPOs and DOTs of a tool such as ECREL. The joint funding of historic preser- around the country. This step is recommended because vation planning tools is not new to these agencies. For exam-