Managing Archaeological Investigations (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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 A working conference to develop effective strategies that enhance and streamline the Section 106 compliance process in relation to the transportation project delivery process was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on February 22–25, 2004. This invitation-only conference was sponsored and funded by the FHWA, AASHTO, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), and the SRI Foundation. The conference did not examine or make recommendations on changing current historic preservation or transportation laws and regulations, but rather focused on best practices for work- ing within the current regulatory and statutory structure. The specific issues and associated best practices examined during the conference included: • Survey/inventory methods • Inventory, evaluation, effects, and mitigation documentation—what, when, and why • Archaeological predictive modeling • Agency review processes • Evaluation of historic resource significance (i.e., National Register eligibility) • Resolution of adverse effects • Roles and responsibilities of the players • Tribal participation and consultation • Public involvement • Information technology as a compliance/preservation tool • Creative mitigation • Effective use of programmatic agreements. The conference format involved the use of small, facili- tated breakout groups and brainstorming on these issues and topics, in addition to large group discussions. Conference attendees came to the meeting prepared to dis- cuss and evaluate the various best practices that exist across the country. Before the conference, attendees were sent a package containing information on a wide range of best prac- tices from state departments of transportation (DOTs), Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). These best practices were selected from the FHWA’s stewardship/streamlining and historic preservation websites, the results of various NCHRP studies, and other sources. The “products” resulting from this working conference consisted of specific recommendations, solutions, and inno- vations to enhance and streamline the Section 106 and proj- ect delivery process. These solutions, recommendations, and innovations were to be practical and useful; fulfilling the day- to-day needs of historic preservation and transportation professionals. The conference ended with the development of Action Plans to implement the products and recommendations of the conference. The Action Plans identified the organiza- tions and leaders that will champion these products and rec- ommendations. The Action Plans also included recommen- dations on how to inform others about the results of the conference. This will be accomplished through various web sites and the listserves of the organizations represented at the conference. A conference report will also be produced after the conference. Copies of the report will be sent to all conference participants and the agencies and organizations represented at the conference. The goal is to maintain the momentum of the conference and to work toward imple- menting the recommendations of the conference, and to seek funding if required. CONFERENCE ATTENDEES The following is a list of conference attendees: • Executive Director and President of the NCSHPO • SHPO representatives • THPOs and tribal representatives • FHWA’s Federal Preservation Officer • AASHTO representative • State DOT representatives • Executive Director of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)

49 • American Cultural Resource Association (ACRA) rep- resentatives (ACRA represents historic preservation consultants around the country) • National experts in historic preservation and transporta- tion information technology and management programs. SRI Foundation, with assistance from URS Corporation, served as the facilitators for the working conference and han- dled all conference logistics. CONFERENCE RESULTS Conference participants identified five Action Plans to enhance and streamline Section 106 compliance and trans- portation project delivery: • Pre-project planning—integrating cultural and natural resources early in pre-project planning and program- ming, re-energizing the development and appropriate use of historic contexts, examining pre-project planning models. • Improving the Section 106 process and project delivery— improving mitigation efforts, creating consistent ap- proaches for assessing National Register eligibility and project effects, and developing state-based streamlining agreements. • Communication—enhancing public benefits, develop- ing guidance on tribal consultation, emphasizing context- sensitive design in terms of historic preservation. • Funding—fully funding the Historic Preservation Fund, setting aside FHWA grant program funds for historic preservation offices, presenting examples and evidence on the value of pre-planning to agency leaders. • Information technology/information management systems—creating a model DOT information clearing- house website, designing a model project activity track- ing program, and fostering and improving tribal infor- mation technology. The following pages present a more detailed description of the conference recommendations and Action Plans. These pages are direct transcriptions of flip-chart notes written by conference participants, with some editing. RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION PLANS Pre-Project Planning Action #1 Recommend to Environmental Streamlining Task Force that they adopt/institutionalize a communication process, to be developed in each state, to share data and program priorities to integrate cultural and natural resources early in pre-project planning and programming. Benefits—Could spin off into natural resources and other agencies. • Data sharing • Priorities identified • Areas of concern identified (geographical/topical) • Developing areas of concern identified • Agencies/tribes and state specific agencies participants identified early in process [e.g., metropolitan planning offices (MPOs)]. Who Fred Skaer (FHWA) and John Fowler (ACHP) When (time frame) March 2004 Definable Outcome/Product: • Task force adopts recommendations. • Guidance to state offices/agencies/tribal governments to implement recommendations. • Results in less conflict in programs and improved inte- gration of planning and programs. Action #2 Re-energize agencies/communities on the development and appropriate use of historic contexts. • Convene practitioners. • Guidance package (toolkit) for SHPO/THPO/DOTs, to include: – Model programmatic agreement (PA) (stipulating process for developing historic contexts). PA could stipulate that historic context development is in lieu of/as mitigation, – Guidance on public involvement associated with context development, – Outline of what a historic context is, – How to apply historic contexts, and – Scope of work for consultants to identify historic contexts. Concerns: • Are historic contexts being used? • Do we need to follow whole process (e.g., submit mul- tiple nominations)? • Costly effort with little use? Who Coalition: National Park Service (NPS), FHWA, NCSHPO, ACHP, National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO), AASHTO

When (time frame) Toolkit: October 2004–October 2005 Convening practitioners: October 2005 Definable Outcome/Product: • Toolkit (see above). • Convening practitioners. • States producing useful historic contexts and employ- ing them in pre-project planning. Action #3 Undertake research to examine pre-project planning models. Possible funding sources: NCHRP, AASHTO’s Standing Committee on the Environment (SCOE). Practical Research Options: • Examine natural resource models (e.g., North Car- olina’s Ecosystem Enhancement Program) to determine if applicable to cultural resources in terms of pre- planning efforts. • Search for cultural resource practice: – Creative early planning – Creative early mitigation. • Conduct study on benefits, including cost savings, of pre-planning. Benefits: • Short-term completion of studies through established research programs • Low-to-moderate costs • Relatively comprehensive examination • Better projects/protection of historic resources. Who AASHTO, SCOE, FHWA Time Frame: April 2004 (topic to be presented at annual SCOE meeting). Research—12 months Definable Outcome/Product: • Research reports (including SHPO/THPO). • Presentations at conferences (e.g., SCOE, TRB annual/ summer meetings). IMPROVING THE SECTION 106 PROCESS AND PROJECT DELIVERY Mitigation Improvements Outcome: Joint ACHP/FHWA policy statement on: 50 • Why creative mitigation is good for resources, descen- dant communities, public benefits, and project delivery. • Encouragement/authorization for DOTs, SHPOs, THPOs to do creative mitigation. • Where to find good examples. Time Frame: September 30, 2004—issuance of policy Responsible Parties/Tasks: ACHP and FHWA organize a working group involving pri- mary stakeholders. Recommended Follow-Up Activities: • Encourage other agencies to adopt the policy. • Develop mechanism for showcasing successful creative mitigations (ongoing) and for information sharing. CONSISTENT APPROACHES FOR ASSESSING ELIGIBILITY AND EFFECTS Outcome #1: Practice-based guidance on preparing: • Eligibility statements • Assessments of effects. Time Frame: March 1, 2005 Responsible Parties/Tasks: • NCSHPOs to convene a working group comprising SHPO, THPOs, transportation agencies, NPS, ACHP, and the ACRA. • Broad comment and opportunities for additional con- stituencies. Outcome #2: Development and delivery of training for all Section 106 practitioners based on the guidance developed in Outcome #1: • Web-based or video delivery • Modular for property types • Include assessment instrument. Time Frame: (1) Feasibility study—March 1, 2005; (2) Course available March 1, 2006 Responsible Parties: SRI Foundation and cast of thousands for (1) and TBA for (2) STATE-BASED STREAMLINING AGREEMENTS Outcome: Make available to state DOTs encourage- ment and assistance to develop streamlining agreements. Examples:

51 • Delegation of PAs (e.g., Certified Local Governments, Navajo Nation, California, Ohio, Vermont). • DOT funded positions at SHPO. • Informal agreements—protocols, memoranda of under- standing. • Programmatic approaches for categories of undertak- ings, properties, and effects, rather than case-by-case process. Time Frame: Initial contact to FHWA divisions—December 31, 2004 Responsible Parties: • FHWA with assistance from AASHTO to develop encouragement and assistance. • NCSHPO to disseminate information to SHPOs. • FHWA to request NPS assistance to inform tribes. COMMUNICATION Public Benefit Product: DOTs, SHPOs, and THPOs cooperate to publicize positive preservation outcomes. Time Frame: Ongoing Product: List of best practices for creative preservation out- comes. Publicize examples through educational programs, publications, websites, etc. Responsible Parties: FHWA, SHPOs, DOTs, THPOs Time Frame: Ongoing Product: Eliciting and incorporating a community’s preser- vation values into project outcomes. Responsible Parties: DOTs, SHPOs, communities Time Frame: Early and ongoing TRIBAL CONSULTATION Product: Series of guidance documents on tribal consultation: • Best practices on FHWA website. • One time regional meetings for FHWA/DOT, hosted by tribes. Responsible Parties: FHWA/ACHP Time Frame: Spring 2004–FY05 Product: National model for tribal mentoring. Responsible Parties: New Mexico SHPO/Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes; New Mexico DOT Time Frame: End FY05 COMMUNITIES/PUBLIC Product: Emphasize historic preservation within context- sensitive design guidance to identify and engage Certified Local Governments (CLGs), MPOs, and key members of communities early in project planning. Responsible Parties: FHWA; SHPO to develop commu- nity contact list Time Frame: End of FY05 FUNDING Goal 1: $50 million from SHPOs. $12 million from THPOs. Responsible Parties: Secretaries of Transportation, Housing and Urban Develop- ment, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Federal Communications Commission, Health and Human Services Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture • United South and Eastern Tribes (USET) and other tribes. • National Governors Association (NGA). • NCSHPO. • NATHPO. • PA. Lead Parties: John Nau—ACHP, John Horsley—AASHTO Process: Letter(s) to Office on Management and Budget (OMB) requesting budget enhancement in Historic Preservation Fund for FY06 1. Secretary letter 2. Letter from USET and other tribes 3. NGA. Time Frame: 1. Spring 2004 lead parties meet with Secretaries. 2. Letter and best practice information sheet to OMB by summer 2004. 3. Efforts monitored by NCSHPO, NATHPO, AASHTO.

Soundbyte: Historic Preservation Office (HPO)-sized set aside. Goal 2: Carve out HPO set aside from FHWA grant programs: • Technology transfer program. • Environmental stewardship and streamlining program. • Transportation Enhancement program (with a guaran- tee percentage to go to transportation-related historic preservation efforts). • Statewide planning and research funds. Time Frame: FY05 and beyond FY05 Provide information to HPOs and DOTs of available funding sources. Time Frame: Immediately. Responsible Parties: FHWA, AASHTO, Santa Fe confer- ence participants Lead Parties MaryAnn Naber—FHWA, Fred Skaer—FHWA, John Hors- ley—AASHTO Goal 3: Present to Mary Peters (FHWA) and U.S. Congress exam- ples on best practices and cost-saving models of pre-planning that improve the Section 106 compliance process and project delivery. Responsible Parties: TRB/NCHRP, large private-sector consulting firms, DOTs, Preservation Action, THPOs Lead Parties: NCSHPO (Jon Smith, Indiana SHPO) and Allyson Brooks (Washington State SHPO) Time Frame: Summer 2004 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY/INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Recommendation and Action Plan: Creating Model DOT Information Clearinghouse Web Page Designed to • Provide and query historic property information to identify, evaluate, determine effects, and resolve adverse effects. 52 • Obtain historic context reports and allow for updates— capture and enter data electronically. • Formally link federal and state agencies and tribes [through, for example, a Memorandum of Understand- ing (MOU)] to ensure development, implementation, management/update of information. • Provide best practices information. • Show examples of MOUs/agency information technol- ogy agreements and documents. • Provide guidance on “staged approach” to information technology system development, use of data, reliability of data. • Include written reports or articles on positive and neg- ative experiences in development of information tech- nology systems. Attributes: • Capture specific transportation project and Section 106 compliance costs, effects, benefits—to allow for FHWA to report on project successes and failures. • When FHWA funding used for transportation projects, would require state DOTs to provide information on project successes and failures—web page could provide one or more specifications for requirements for con- tractors (e.g., sample language)—to fill out data entry in specific way. • Designed to share information from multiple sources. • Share information on how to pay for state information technology data plan development (perhaps show 2 or 3 examples). Recommended Action Plan and Dates and Parties Action Steps Who? When? 1. Secure 3rd party (neutral) Eric Ingbar 3/31/04 website address 2. Complete development of IT Work 5/30/04 clearinghouse information group technology structure 3. Develop scope of work for TBD TBD larger study/update 4. Secure FHWA and other TBD TBD partner funding to update and populate with new data (Phase II) 5. Roll out products through TBD TBD “webinar”

53 ACTION PLAN TO DESIGN PROJECT ACTIVITY TRACKING DATA MODEL Designed to • Enhance integration of transportation planning and his- toric preservation to answer questions about – National Register eligibility of resources – Was historic property affected? How? – Treatment outcome? – Might also add information on such items as: Sub- ject to easement? Status as of “x” date? Received historic preservation funding? • Better address “environmental commitments” than present efforts. • Be useful for states that have high level of information technology sophistication, but also useful for states that need new elements (e.g., National Register evaluations, project tracking, and cost benefits). • Shared information technology/information manage- ment systems that allow sharing of information and track decisions about projects and historic properties and historic preservation. Attributes: • Be a model to share information about streamlining. • Will develop specific questions for business plan. Action Steps: 1. Information technology study committee designs pro- totype model. Optimally, have two or three state DOTs involved (California, Florida, North Carolina, Wyoming?). Estimated to require 80 h of donated time. To be completed by 3/31/2004. 2. Identify scope of work and cost estimate; secure FHWA funds to implement and provide completed business plan. PROPOSED ACTION ITEM: TRIBAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Designed to • Have locational data on religious or culturally significant areas (sensitivity areas to be avoided) for pre-planning. • Provide updated contact information for tribes with interest in historical areas outside of current tribal lands. Include map locations. • Provide model process to develop information technol- ogy capability of tribes for historic preservation efforts. • Be a marketing tool for future similar efforts. • Be an object on “IT Information Clearinghouse.” • Assess tribal systems and evaluate effectiveness. Iden- tify areas for improvement. Outcome: Results provided to tribes only, by means of a conference/ teleconference or “webinar.” Attributes: Used as a way to foster more effective communication among tribes and FHWA, state DOTs, SHPOs, etc. Action Steps: Feasibility Study: Approach NATHPO and other tribal organizations (e.g., the TRB’s A5020 Committee on Native American Trans- portation Issues) and assess feasibility, support, and interest for conducting a pilot study that (1) com- piles information on current best practices on tribal-based information technology historic preservation data- bases/systems and (2) determines if and how these databases/systems can be distributed to tribes that have no information technology programs. Date: May 2004 Pilot Study: If a decision is made to proceed with the pilot study, then IT Study Group develops scope of work, in consultation with NATHPO and other national and regional-level tribal organizations. The regional organizations/programs and key tribes that may be the most effective venue for the study includes • Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes • Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reser- vation • Navajo Nation • Tribal colleges • Tribal Technical Assistance Program, Institute for Transportation Management (Ronald Hall, Colorado State University) • Indigenous Communities Mapping Initiative. Ensure FHWA funds pilot study, initiate by November 1, 2004, and complete by October 30, 2005. Cost Estimates for Feasibility Study Estimate 80 person hours Responsible Parties: IT Work Group suggests that AASHTO be asked whether this fits within the scope of AASHTO’s currently being developed “Best Practices in Tribal Consultation Web Site.” If not, give to FHWA and ACHP for consideration. Write-up completed by March 30, 2004, as a prospectus for the initial feasibility study.