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 47
48 APPENDIX C Preliminary Results from a Working Conference on Enhancing and Streamlining Section 106 Compliance and Transportation Project Delivery, Santa Fe, New Mexico, February 2004 Note: The recommendations and action items that follow were identified by participants at the Santa Fe conference. They do not represent the official rec- ommendations or opinions of the Federal Highway Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, any State Department of Transportation, any sovereign tribal government, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the National Conference of State Historic Preser- vation Officers. The pages presenting the conference recommendations are direct transcriptions of flip-chart notes written by participants, with some editing. OBJECTIVE AND FORMAT OF CONFERENCE Preservation Officers (SHPOs). These best practices were selected from the FHWA's stewardship/streamlining and A working conference to develop effective strategies that historic preservation websites, the results of various NCHRP enhance and streamline the Section 106 compliance process in studies, and other sources. relation to the transportation project delivery process was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on February 2225, 2004. This The "products" resulting from this working conference invitation-only conference was sponsored and funded by the consisted of specific recommendations, solutions, and inno- FHWA, AASHTO, the National Conference of State Historic vations to enhance and streamline the Section 106 and proj- Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), and the SRI Foundation. ect delivery process. These solutions, recommendations, and The conference did not examine or make recommendations on innovations were to be practical and useful; fulfilling the day- changing current historic preservation or transportation laws to-day needs of historic preservation and transportation and regulations, but rather focused on best practices for work- professionals. ing within the current regulatory and statutory structure. The conference ended with the development of Action The specific issues and associated best practices examined Plans to implement the products and recommendations of during the conference included: the conference. The Action Plans identified the organiza- tions and leaders that will champion these products and rec- · Survey/inventory methods ommendations. The Action Plans also included recommen- · Inventory, evaluation, effects, and mitigation dations on how to inform others about the results of the documentation--what, when, and why conference. This will be accomplished through various web · Archaeological predictive modeling sites and the listserves of the organizations represented at · Agency review processes the conference. A conference report will also be produced · Evaluation of historic resource significance (i.e., National after the conference. Copies of the report will be sent to all Register eligibility) conference participants and the agencies and organizations · Resolution of adverse effects represented at the conference. The goal is to maintain the · Roles and responsibilities of the players momentum of the conference and to work toward imple- · Tribal participation and consultation menting the recommendations of the conference, and to seek · Public involvement · Information technology as a compliance/preservation tool funding if required. · Creative mitigation · Effective use of programmatic agreements. CONFERENCE ATTENDEES The conference format involved the use of small, facili- The following is a list of conference attendees: tated breakout groups and brainstorming on these issues and topics, in addition to large group discussions. · Executive Director and President of the NCSHPO · SHPO representatives Conference attendees came to the meeting prepared to dis- · THPOs and tribal representatives cuss and evaluate the various best practices that exist across · FHWA's Federal Preservation Officer the country. Before the conference, attendees were sent a · AASHTO representative package containing information on a wide range of best prac- · State DOT representatives tices from state departments of transportation (DOTs), Tribal · Executive Director of the Advisory Council on Historic Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and State Historic Preservation (ACHP)
OCR for page 48
49 · American Cultural Resource Association (ACRA) rep- Benefits--Could spin off into natural resources and other resentatives (ACRA represents historic preservation agencies. consultants around the country) · National experts in historic preservation and transporta- · Data sharing tion information technology and management programs. · Priorities identified · Areas of concern identified (geographical/topical) SRI Foundation, with assistance from URS Corporation, · Developing areas of concern identified served as the facilitators for the working conference and han- · Agencies/tribes and state specific agencies participants dled all conference logistics. identified early in process [e.g., metropolitan planning offices (MPOs)]. CONFERENCE RESULTS Who Fred Skaer (FHWA) and John Fowler (ACHP) Conference participants identified five Action Plans to enhance and streamline Section 106 compliance and trans- When (time frame) portation project delivery: March 2004 · Pre-project planning--integrating cultural and natural resources early in pre-project planning and program- Definable Outcome/Product: ming, re-energizing the development and appropriate use of historic contexts, examining pre-project planning · Task force adopts recommendations. models. · Guidance to state offices/agencies/tribal governments · Improving the Section 106 process and project delivery-- to implement recommendations. improving mitigation efforts, creating consistent ap- · Results in less conflict in programs and improved inte- proaches for assessing National Register eligibility and gration of planning and programs. project effects, and developing state-based streamlining agreements. Action #2 · Communication--enhancing public benefits, develop- ing guidance on tribal consultation, emphasizing context- Re-energize agencies/communities on the development and sensitive design in terms of historic preservation. appropriate use of historic contexts. · Funding--fully funding the Historic Preservation Fund, setting aside FHWA grant program funds for historic · Convene practitioners. preservation offices, presenting examples and evidence · Guidance package (toolkit) for SHPO/THPO/DOTs, to on the value of pre-planning to agency leaders. include: · Information technology/information management Model programmatic agreement (PA) (stipulating systems--creating a model DOT information clearing- process for developing historic contexts). PA could house website, designing a model project activity track- stipulate that historic context development is in lieu ing program, and fostering and improving tribal infor- of/as mitigation, mation technology. Guidance on public involvement associated with context development, The following pages present a more detailed description of Outline of what a historic context is, the conference recommendations and Action Plans. These How to apply historic contexts, and pages are direct transcriptions of flip-chart notes written by Scope of work for consultants to identify historic conference participants, with some editing. contexts. Concerns: RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS Pre-Project Planning · Are historic contexts being used? · Do we need to follow whole process (e.g., submit mul- Action #1 tiple nominations)? · Costly effort with little use? Recommend to Environmental Streamlining Task Force that they adopt/institutionalize a communication process, to be Who developed in each state, to share data and program priorities Coalition: National Park Service (NPS), FHWA, NCSHPO, to integrate cultural and natural resources early in pre-project ACHP, National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation planning and programming. Officers (NATHPO), AASHTO
OCR for page 49
50 When (time frame) · Why creative mitigation is good for resources, descen- Toolkit: October 2004October 2005 dant communities, public benefits, and project delivery. Convening practitioners: October 2005 · Encouragement/authorization for DOTs, SHPOs, THPOs to do creative mitigation. Definable Outcome/Product: · Where to find good examples. · Toolkit (see above). Time Frame: September 30, 2004--issuance of policy · Convening practitioners. · States producing useful historic contexts and employ- Responsible Parties/Tasks: ing them in pre-project planning. ACHP and FHWA organize a working group involving pri- mary stakeholders. Action #3 Recommended Follow-Up Activities: Undertake research to examine pre-project planning models. · Encourage other agencies to adopt the policy. Possible funding sources: NCHRP, AASHTO's Standing · Develop mechanism for showcasing successful creative Committee on the Environment (SCOE). mitigations (ongoing) and for information sharing. Practical Research Options: CONSISTENT APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING · Examine natural resource models (e.g., North Car- ELIGIBILITY AND EFFECTS olina's Ecosystem Enhancement Program) to determine if applicable to cultural resources in terms of pre- Outcome #1: Practice-based guidance on preparing: planning efforts. · Search for cultural resource practice: · Eligibility statements Creative early planning · Assessments of effects. Creative early mitigation. · Conduct study on benefits, including cost savings, of Time Frame: March 1, 2005 pre-planning. Responsible Parties/Tasks: Benefits: · NCSHPOs to convene a working group comprising · Short-term completion of studies through established SHPO, THPOs, transportation agencies, NPS, ACHP, research programs and the ACRA. · Low-to-moderate costs · Broad comment and opportunities for additional con- · Relatively comprehensive examination stituencies. · Better projects/protection of historic resources. Outcome #2: Development and delivery of training for all Who Section 106 practitioners based on the guidance developed in AASHTO, SCOE, FHWA Outcome #1: Time Frame: April 2004 (topic to be presented at annual · Web-based or video delivery SCOE meeting). Research--12 months · Modular for property types · Include assessment instrument. Definable Outcome/Product: Time Frame: (1) Feasibility study--March 1, 2005; (2) · Research reports (including SHPO/THPO). Course available March 1, 2006 · Presentations at conferences (e.g., SCOE, TRB annual/ summer meetings). Responsible Parties: SRI Foundation and cast of thousands for (1) and TBA for (2) IMPROVING THE SECTION 106 PROCESS AND PROJECT DELIVERY STATE-BASED STREAMLINING AGREEMENTS Mitigation Improvements Outcome: Make available to state DOTs encourage- ment and assistance to develop streamlining agreements. Outcome: Joint ACHP/FHWA policy statement on: Examples:
OCR for page 50
51 · Delegation of PAs (e.g., Certified Local Governments, Product: National model for tribal mentoring. Navajo Nation, California, Ohio, Vermont). · DOT funded positions at SHPO. Responsible Parties: New Mexico SHPO/Confederated · Informal agreements--protocols, memoranda of under- Salish & Kootenai Tribes; New Mexico DOT standing. · Programmatic approaches for categories of undertak- Time Frame: End FY05 ings, properties, and effects, rather than case-by-case process. COMMUNITIES/PUBLIC Time Frame: Initial contact to FHWA divisions--December Product: Emphasize historic preservation within context- 31, 2004 sensitive design guidance to identify and engage Certified Local Governments (CLGs), MPOs, and key members of Responsible Parties: communities early in project planning. · FHWA with assistance from AASHTO to develop Responsible Parties: FHWA; SHPO to develop commu- encouragement and assistance. nity contact list · NCSHPO to disseminate information to SHPOs. · FHWA to request NPS assistance to inform tribes. Time Frame: End of FY05 FUNDING COMMUNICATION Public Benefit Goal 1: Product: DOTs, SHPOs, and THPOs cooperate to publicize $50 million from SHPOs. $12 million from THPOs. positive preservation outcomes. Responsible Parties: Time Frame: Ongoing Secretaries of Transportation, Housing and Urban Develop- ment, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Federal Product: List of best practices for creative preservation out- Communications Commission, Health and Human Services comes. Publicize examples through educational programs, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture publications, websites, etc. · United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) and other tribes. Responsible Parties: FHWA, SHPOs, DOTs, THPOs · National Governors Association (NGA). · NCSHPO. Time Frame: Ongoing · NATHPO. · PA. Product: Eliciting and incorporating a community's preser- vation values into project outcomes. Lead Parties: John Nau--ACHP, John Horsley--AASHTO Responsible Parties: DOTs, SHPOs, communities Process: Time Frame: Early and ongoing Letter(s) to Office on Management and Budget (OMB) requesting budget enhancement in Historic Preservation Fund for FY06 TRIBAL CONSULTATION 1. Secretary letter Product: Series of guidance documents on tribal consultation: 2. Letter from USET and other tribes 3. NGA. · Best practices on FHWA website. · One time regional meetings for FHWA/DOT, hosted by Time Frame: tribes. 1. Spring 2004 lead parties meet with Secretaries. Responsible Parties: FHWA/ACHP 2. Letter and best practice information sheet to OMB by summer 2004. Time Frame: Spring 2004FY05 3. Efforts monitored by NCSHPO, NATHPO, AASHTO.
OCR for page 51
52 Soundbyte: Historic Preservation Office (HPO)-sized set · Obtain historic context reports and allow for updates-- aside. capture and enter data electronically. · Formally link federal and state agencies and tribes [through, for example, a Memorandum of Understand- Goal 2: ing (MOU)] to ensure development, implementation, Carve out HPO set aside from FHWA grant programs: management/update of information. · Provide best practices information. · Technology transfer program. · Show examples of MOUs/agency information technol- · Environmental stewardship and streamlining program. ogy agreements and documents. · Transportation Enhancement program (with a guaran- · Provide guidance on "staged approach" to information tee percentage to go to transportation-related historic technology system development, use of data, reliability preservation efforts). of data. · Statewide planning and research funds. · Include written reports or articles on positive and neg- ative experiences in development of information tech- Time Frame: FY05 and beyond FY05 nology systems. Provide information to HPOs and DOTs of available funding sources. Attributes: Time Frame: Immediately. · Capture specific transportation project and Section 106 compliance costs, effects, benefits--to allow for FHWA Responsible Parties: FHWA, AASHTO, Santa Fe confer- to report on project successes and failures. ence participants · When FHWA funding used for transportation projects, would require state DOTs to provide information on Lead Parties project successes and failures--web page could provide MaryAnn Naber--FHWA, Fred Skaer--FHWA, John Hors- one or more specifications for requirements for con- ley--AASHTO tractors (e.g., sample language)--to fill out data entry in specific way. · Designed to share information from multiple sources. Goal 3: · Share information on how to pay for state information technology data plan development (perhaps show 2 or Present to Mary Peters (FHWA) and U.S. Congress exam- ples on best practices and cost-saving models of pre-planning 3 examples). that improve the Section 106 compliance process and project delivery. Recommended Action Plan and Dates and Parties Responsible Parties: TRB/NCHRP, large private-sector consulting firms, DOTs, Preservation Action, THPOs Action Steps Who? When? Lead Parties: 1. Secure 3rd party (neutral) Eric Ingbar 3/31/04 NCSHPO (Jon Smith, Indiana SHPO) and Allyson Brooks website address (Washington State SHPO) 2. Complete development of IT Work 5/30/04 Time Frame: Summer 2004 clearinghouse information group technology structure INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/INFORMATION 3. Develop scope of work for TBD TBD MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS larger study/update Recommendation and Action Plan: Creating Model DOT Information Clearinghouse Web Page 4. Secure FHWA and other TBD TBD partner funding to update Designed to and populate with new data (Phase II) · Provide and query historic property information to identify, evaluate, determine effects, and resolve 5. Roll out products through TBD TBD adverse effects. "webinar"
OCR for page 52
53 ACTION PLAN TO DESIGN PROJECT ACTIVITY Outcome: TRACKING DATA MODEL Results provided to tribes only, by means of a conference/ teleconference or "webinar." Designed to · Enhance integration of transportation planning and his- Attributes: toric preservation to answer questions about Used as a way to foster more effective communication among National Register eligibility of resources tribes and FHWA, state DOTs, SHPOs, etc. Was historic property affected? How? Treatment outcome? Action Steps: Might also add information on such items as: Sub- ject to easement? Status as of "x" date? Received Feasibility Study: historic preservation funding? · Better address "environmental commitments" than Approach NATHPO and other tribal organizations (e.g., present efforts. the TRB's A5020 Committee on Native American Trans- · Be useful for states that have high level of information portation Issues) and assess feasibility, support, technology sophistication, but also useful for states that and interest for conducting a pilot study that (1) com- need new elements (e.g., National Register evaluations, piles information on current best practices on tribal-based project tracking, and cost benefits). information technology historic preservation data- · Shared information technology/information manage- bases/systems and (2) determines if and how these ment systems that allow sharing of information and databases/systems can be distributed to tribes that have track decisions about projects and historic properties no information technology programs. and historic preservation. Date: May 2004 Attributes: Pilot Study: · Be a model to share information about streamlining. · Will develop specific questions for business plan. If a decision is made to proceed with the pilot study, then IT Study Group develops scope of work, in consultation Action Steps: with NATHPO and other national and regional-level tribal organizations. The regional organizations/programs 1. Information technology study committee designs pro- and key tribes that may be the most effective venue for the totype model. Optimally, have two or three state DOTs study includes involved (California, Florida, North Carolina, Wyoming?). Estimated to require 80 h of donated time. · Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes To be completed by 3/31/2004. · Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reser- 2. Identify scope of work and cost estimate; secure vation FHWA funds to implement and provide completed · Navajo Nation business plan. · Tribal colleges · Tribal Technical Assistance Program, Institute for Transportation Management (Ronald Hall, Colorado PROPOSED ACTION ITEM: State University) TRIBAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY · Indigenous Communities Mapping Initiative. Designed to Ensure FHWA funds pilot study, initiate by November 1, 2004, and complete by October 30, 2005. · Have locational data on religious or culturally significant areas (sensitivity areas to be avoided) for pre-planning. Cost Estimates for Feasibility Study · Provide updated contact information for tribes with Estimate 80 person hours interest in historical areas outside of current tribal lands. Include map locations. Responsible Parties: · Provide model process to develop information technol- IT Work Group suggests that AASHTO be asked whether ogy capability of tribes for historic preservation efforts. this fits within the scope of AASHTO's currently being · Be a marketing tool for future similar efforts. developed "Best Practices in Tribal Consultation Web Site." · Be an object on "IT Information Clearinghouse." If not, give to FHWA and ACHP for consideration. Write-up · Assess tribal systems and evaluate effectiveness. Iden- completed by March 30, 2004, as a prospectus for the initial tify areas for improvement. feasibility study.