Design and Management of Historic Roads (2012)

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.

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-1 2.0 Planning for Balanced Solutions Balanced Solutions: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2.1 Introduction Advancing transportation projects has moved beyond simply solving for transportation needs. Federal and state environmental protection regulations must be considered, not just those related to historic preservation but also those related to clean air, water quality, migratory birds, wetlands, endangered species, wildlife refuges and noise. As a result, reaching a balanced solution often means weighing the relative costs, benefits and competing values embodied in transportation needs and among the various environmental policies. Fortuitously, historic roads have standing in the planning and project development process under the provisions in the US DOT Act of 1966. This law mandates that federally funded or permitted projects avoid adverse effects to historic properties or demonstrate through a Section 4(f) evaluation that there is no prudent and feasible alternative other than adversely impacting (using) a historic property. Carrying out this mandate is the responsibility of the lead federal agency, most often the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Research demonstrates that the law and procedures requiring consideration of historic properties is most efficiently and effectively implemented when their preservation is fairly considered from the outset of planning and project development. This approach starts a project well by establishing an environment where multiple perspectives can work together to develop balanced solutions that meets the specific transportation purpose and the broader goals like preservation and environmental protection. 2.2 Integrating Historic Preservation from the Outset of Planning and Project Development For any transportation project to end well, it has to start well. The single most effective way to fulfill regulatory requirements and to achieve balanced solutions that benefit historic roads is to identify and incorporate preservation of significant historic features from the very outset of project planning and then to carry it through the design development process as a stated desired goal and as a meaningful measure in evaluating alternatives. This means that from the outset, various disciplines are brought together to work cooperatively to agree on project definitions and to ensure that preservation issues are addressed as a matter of advancing projects. The state of Vermont Agency of Transportation is so sure of this approach that it has been codified in their design standards. There is nothing procedurally that keeps other states from following suit. In reality, the guidance for projects involving historic roads is no different than the approach to developing any other context-sensitive solution, which is as much a collaborative, iterative process as it is an outcome. The distinction is that for historic roads and roads in historic districts, the important physical manifestations of the past, or what makes the road historically

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-2 significant, is the historic context used to define the goals and desired outcome, not other goals like beautification, heritage tourism, retaining scenic qualities or economic development. 2.3 Both Perspectives Have Important Roles to Play Both FHWA and the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have endorsed and enabled planning and project development processes to achieve the balanced outcomes. But endorsement of a process alone does not achieve preservation of historic roads. Balanced solutions are achieved when each constituency has respect for and an appreciation of the goals of other perspectives and demonstrates that understanding by bringing complete, accurate and relevant information to the planning and project development process. This includes well-founded data about why a road is historic and engineering data related to the road‘s condition and specific documentation supporting understanding of specific deficiencies. Since DOT‘s generally serve with FHWA in their state as the joint lead agencies, they are responsible for interagency coordination and providing sufficient data on both engineering and historic properties to support the decision making process. This includes cultural resources evaluations, engineering data and information relevant to other NEPA issues that are part of the considerations. The efficiency of the process is largely dependent on the quality and completeness of that information. For example, SHPO‘s rarely have the staff to conduct their own research and field investigations, so they rely on the lead agencies to provide them with contextual and site-specific data and analysis of sufficient breadth and quality to facilitate their meaningful participation in the decision making process and to fulfill their obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. A review of the practice demonstrates that preserving historic roads occurs most often when all stakeholders have a clear and well supported understanding of why roads or their context is historic and which of their many elements or components are most important to maintaining that significance. The relative importance of specific road features varies among historic road types and their associative contexts. Understanding which components are vital to maintaining historic significance and which are not frequently informs ways of upgrading or improving without adverse effects. This is the kind of information that lead agencies need to provide to all stakeholders. Similarly, meeting a transportation need is generally most achievable when the information identifying the need for remedial work is documented and well presented. Well- supported reasons explaining the transportation deficiency or deficiencies (safety, mobility, reliability, not a predetermined solution) facilitate fair and balanced analysis of alternatives to achieve the appropriate balance between sound engineering and preservation. 2.4 Define Purpose and Need The greatest opportunities for achieving balanced outcomes occur at the very outset of planning and project development when the purpose and need are being developed. It is at this stage that

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-3 so many of the decisions that will influence the final design are made. When considerations like preservation are not included as part of the desired project goals, or purpose and need state predetermined solutions rather than the problem to be solved, the process of achieving balanced solutions can become protracted with a decision amenable to all parties difficult to obtain. The key to starting out right is having project purpose and need statements crafted to clearly state the transportation issues (mobility, safety, reliability) to be addressed (e.g., the purpose is to improve safety along a highway segment that has a high crash rate). They should not be crafted in ways that focus on solutions or too narrowly constrain the range of alternatives (e.g., the purpose is to widen the road). Clearly identifying the transportation issues that are the purpose or purposes for the project facilitates consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives (Figure 2.1). It also initiates the needed dialogue among stakeholders for the most appropriate ways to meet the need, which might be accomplished using treatments other than widening, especially if they involve historic roads. Since transportation projects can achieve other important goals in addition to meeting purpose and need, transportation agencies have the discretion to add other objectives, like preservation of historic roads, as desired outcomes without making them part of the primary purpose. These goals and objectives follow the purpose and need statement and support it by defining additional outcomes and the full range of important factors that should be considered during the decision Figure 2.1. Importance of Proving Need. A proposed project to improve a county road was initiated without a justified and well supported purpose and need statement. Plans to reconstruct the road were scrapped when the purpose and need for the work could not be justified, but not after effort had been invested in advancing the project and assessing its effect on a segment of the road that had served as part of a road race circuit from 1950 to 1952. Initial cultural resources investigations missed the connection to the road course. Two years into the project, and after work had begun, local opposition forced reopening the Section 106 consultation. The road race circuits were determined National Register eligible and subsequently listed. Eligibility triggered an alternatives analysis, and it was at that point that the purpose and need could not be supported and justified. The reconstruction work was cancelled, and the county went forward doing incremental improvements not using federal funds.

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-4 making process. Goals and objectives serve to refine the range of alternatives that should be considered and as a measure in defining when purpose and need have been met. The purpose and need statement defines the fundamental reason that a site specific transportation project is proposed. For it to have credibility with the multiple perspectives involved in the project development process, the statement needs to be well supported and understandable using the qualitative and, most importantly, current quantitative data available to transportation planners and designers. For instance, a purpose and need statement to increase the load-carrying capacity of a bridge (operations) located on a historic road should not include widening the road (safety) when the performance of the road is not supported as unsatisfactory. Since historic roads are those with an established performance history, deficiencies should already be well documented. The absence of a crash history may support that there is no current safety problem. The level of documentation to support the concept definition of purpose and need will vary from project to project, but at a minimum, it should include crash history specific to the project location, cumulative inspection data and predicted safety performance and capacity data generated by the IHSDM and the HSM. It cannot be overstated that the purpose and need for solving transportation problems on historic roads should be well supported and well justified in order to secure stakeholder concurrence that there is a problem that needs to be solved. Likewise, for historic issues to be an effective tool in shaping final designs, they too need to be well founded and specific to proactively advance a way forward. This includes definition of specifically what makes the road historic so that those distinguishing features can be addressed as preservation goals and objectives and then used again as meaningful measures in evaluating alternatives. When what makes a road historic, like its scale and relationship to features beyond the right of way in historic districts, is not well articulated or understood by all, it becomes difficult to use history as an effective evaluation criteria or the basis for an appropriate design. As with any project, the initial process of developing consensus also requires stakeholders to acknowledge there is a need for the transportation project. Without it, a project is unlikely to advance smoothly and achieving agreement on a preferred solution can be difficult. Conversely agreement on a problem or problems to be solved and inclusion of preservation of historic significance as a factor in the decision making process establishes the commitment or buy-in by stakeholders to work cooperatively toward a balanced solution as well as a definition of when it has been achieved. Otherwise, preservation of historic significance, along with any other perceived but undefined goal and objective becomes an ever-evolving concept that often delays development of successful balanced designs as stakeholders " discuss‖ its meaning and intent.

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-5 Some considerations to ensure that purpose and need narratives facilitate fair and balanced consideration of historic roads in project development include the following: Ensure that the same consideration for a well defined purpose and need statement with supporting goals and objectives is afforded small projects, not just large or complicated ones. Historic preservation cannot figure into developing a balanced design unless it is used as a factor in screening and evaluating alternatives. Ensure that data and analysis support the need for a specific project. There may be instances where data and research show that construction solutions are not needed. For instance, absence of crash history may demonstrate that there is no current safety problem. A highway engineering adage is that if you don‘t have a current safety problem or if you don‘t have a current operations problem, then you don‘t have a project (Figure 2.2). Ensure that the purpose and need are defined broadly enough to facilitate studying a broad range of alternatives, including meeting other desired outcomes like historic Figure 2.2. When Need For Project Is Not Well Supported. A project to improve an acknowledged poor level of service illustrates the value of a well- supported purpose and need to moving forward and how non-construction treatments can support balanced solutions. Located in an urban setting of complicated intersections of an arterial street and park drives, major medical facilities, and museums, the designers sought to ―uncomplicate‖ the street pattern by straightening some streets and adding others to increase flow capacity through intersections. The park is National Register listed with its meandering drives, now collector streets, and associated bridges are important to conveying its significance. Part of the proposed improvements was to use poor stopping sight distance as justification for straightening a winding street and aligning it with a new segment across the park proper to create a standard urban intersection. This also included removing two historic park bridges. There was no crash history to support a stopping sight distance problem, and the bridges are both wider than the streets. At a field view, historians explained the significance of the roads and bridge and suggested that selected removal of overgrowth on the inside of the curve would improve sight distance, thus eliminating the need for a construction solution. Since the need and purpose for this component of the plan could not be supported, other alternatives that better integrate historic significance into design solutions are being developed.

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-6 preservation. The goals and objectives also need to be defined broadly enough to facilitate solving transportation problems while respecting historic significance. Ensure that transportation problems have been analyzed from the substantive safety perspective as well as the nominal perspective. For 2-lane rural roads, comparisons are possible using the HSM. If there are gaps in data supporting purpose and need, the research and analysis to address insufficient or out-of-date information should be completed. This can include technical reports and sophisticated analysis, as well as analysis of historic context to support identifying distinguished characteristics that merit preservation in order to maintain historic significance. Ensure that historic significance is well summarized and in sufficient specificity for all stakeholders to be able to use it to support project goals and objectives. 2.5 Integrating Historic Significance into Planning and Alternatives Analysis Stages Planning and alternatives analysis is where critical decisions are made about selection of design criteria and which alternatives will be developed to determine the preferred alternatives or designs. In order to have a meaningful influence on design decisions, specific preservation goals and objectives need to be integrated at this stage. One of the most effective is to integrate historic preservation considerations is to use the goals and objectives narrative to memorialize desired outcomes and how history be used in decision making. That is most effectively accomplished by establishing how historic significance will be used as an evaluation criteria, or measures, for determining the range of alternatives that should be considered and how analysis of alternatives will assess preservation as it relates to meeting the project‘s purpose and need. The evaluation criteria can also serve as a key factor in defining " prudence‖ under Section 4(f) of the US DOT Act. Memorialized preservation goals and evaluation criteria can also be important tools when tradeoffs are necessary to meet the transportation purpose and need. When preservation goals and evaluation criteria are not integrated into the planning and alternative analysis stages, it can be difficult to determine which alternatives are reasonable, prudent or practicable or if all reasonable alternatives have even been developed. Since decisions on what alternatives to develop and how they will be analyzed are often the most important and the most disputed among stakeholders because of their influence on selection of preferred alternatives, it makes practical sense to be proactive and include them in purpose and need narratives. Screening criteria need to be broad enough to accommodate historic factors, not just transportation. And even though preservation is a secondary goal and objective to the transportation purpose, it is nevertheless a factor that is critical in decision making, particularly in developing and evaluating a full range of alternatives that consider preservation. For instance, alternatives that meet the purpose and need can still be rejected as unreasonable on the grounds such as having adverse effects on important features of historic roads or roads in historic districts (Figure 2.1).

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-7 Defining how the evaluation criteria will be applied can be accomplished in several ways. It can be a formal protocol or methodology stating how preservation and other environmental issues or values will be applied and if weighting or prioritizing factors will be included. In many instances, particularly for smaller or less complicated projects, it is appropriate to use The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as the evaluation criteria. To be most useful, all stakeholders need to be mindful of what is the appropriate range of alternatives to be studied. Under NEPA, " all reasonable alternatives‖ can potentially mean a very large number. This is determined through "screening‖ to identify the reasonable ranges and those within the range for detailed study. Reasonable alternatives are those that are feasible from a technical and economic standpoint, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant. Not meeting the purpose and need is defined as an unreasonable alternative. If several alternatives meet the purpose and need, then the one with the least environmental impact that meets the project goals and objectives can be determined as reasonable and the others unreasonable. The criteria become all the more important in the project development process because there is no inclusive 4(f) definition of what is prudent and what is not; it varies from project to project based on the purpose and the need, the existing conditions, and the desired project outcome. What is a prudent decision in one circumstance may not be for a similar project for a variety of reasons, ranging from cost to social or other environmental considerations. To facilitate advancing projects through the NEPA process using a holistic approach, FHWA has defined a feasible and prudent alternative as one that "a voids using Section 4(f) property [like a historic road] and does not cause other severe problems of a magnitude that outweighs the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property" (23 CFR Part 774.17). The regulations also make it appropriate to consider the relative value of the resource when assessing the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property. Through codification (CFR 774.17), FHWA provides instances of when an alternative is not feasible and prudent. It compromises the project to such a degree that it is unreasonable to proceed with the project in light of its stated purpose and need; It results in unacceptable safety or operational problems; After reasonable mitigation, it still causes: o Severe social, economic, or environmental impacts; o Severe disruption to established communities; o Severe disproportionate impacts to minority or low income populations; o Severe impacts to environmental resources protected under Federal statutes; It results in additional construction, maintenance, or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude;

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-8 It causes unique problems or other factors; It involves multiple factors in paragraphs above of this definition, that while individually minor, cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude. 2.6 Using Established Preservation Guidance to Determine Effect and Define Prudence One of the consistently most effective measures of the effect of proposed work on historic properties, as well as its prudence, is The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Initially developed by the National Park Service in 1977 to apply to buildings, the codified standards proved to be so sound and broadly applicable that in most states, they serve as the criteria against which proposed undertakings for all types of historic properties are evaluated. As a general rule, if rehabilitation is done in accordance with the Standards, then it will be determined under Section 106 to not have an adverse effect. In 1995, the rehabilitation standards were augmented to include other treatments commonly associated with historic properties - preservation (maintenance), restoration and reconstruction - and a restyled The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties was issued. The treatment most commonly associated with improving transportation facilities is rehabilitation, but the other treatments can also be appropriate. Preservation is often the treatment for maintaining historic roads and significant features associated with historic districts. Generally projects involving historic roads and roads in historic settings are rehabilitation because of their dynamic nature subjects them to any number of demands from accommodating increased usage to the effects of environmental degradation. The operative word in appropriately interpreting The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation is "rehabilitation.‖ It is defined as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.‖ Since the standards acknowledge that change is part of keeping historic properties viable, they intentionally provide for flexibility in decision making so that solutions can be matched to specific conditions. They are not intended to be used to prevent appropriate change or freeze settings or facilities in their current state. The rehabilitation standards consists of ten common-sense directives that balance retaining significant features and original fabric while appropriately accommodating the repair or alteration needed in order to affect keeping the property in use. They emphasize repair over replacement and limited rather than wholesale changes to accommodate improvements in order to preserve those qualities for which a property is National Register listed or eligible. Because of their intention to balance change with preserving historic significance, the standards can and should be used as the evaluation criteria for evaluating the alternatives and the measure to determine which meet project need and broader goals without an adverse effect or have the least overall harm. Their integration into the project development process has the added advantage of

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-9 fulfilling environmental laws and regulations. Since application of the standards addresses the same considerations needed to inform Section 106 determinations of effects, their use as a meaningful measure of developing the final design facilitates efficiently completing the Section 106 effects report, as well as the Section 4(f) evaluation. The types of information these documents require will have already been completed. It is important to not lose sight of the fact that there will be instances where the best preservation solution will still result in a procedural finding of an adverse effect. This is because the codified criteria of effect and adverse effect are the most narrowly defined criteria applied to preservation of historic resources. For example, moving a bridge is defined as an adverse effect, yet historically metal truss bridges have routinely been relocated since the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Today, relocating a historic truss bridge so that it can be rehabilitated for an adaptive use is a well-established preservation treatment, yet it is defined in 36 CFR 800.5 as an adverse effect. Still, practitioners should strive for the best outcome, even when the solution is determined, based on the codified criteria, to have an adverse effect. 2.7 Value of Early Assessment of Environmental Risks Conducting a field view to screen for environmental risks early in the planning and project development process has proven to be an effective planning strategy for historic properties, including historic roads. In addition to providing an understanding of the historic context and site characteristics, the field view affords an opportunity for candid and informal discussions among agency planners, project managers, environmental coordinators, cultural resources personnel and SHPO staff before presumptions and preferred outcomes are formulated or agendas have been set. Environmental "red flags‖ or risks can be identified and discussed, and discussions can be relayed back to owners and managers in a proactive and non-threatening manner. Optimally this informal field view occurs early in the planning process as the purpose and need is being considered and refined. A common byproduct of joint field views is an understanding of the "lay of the land‖ that often triggers thinking about alternative ways to solve transportation problems. Being in the field and experiencing deficiencies firsthand increases awareness of the purpose and need that in turn will be reflected in appropriately defining or refining the purpose and need statement. 2.8 Scope Projects Correctly How projects are scoped can make a significant difference in outcomes for historic roads or roads in historic districts. Since historic roads are existing older roads, much of the work is for reasons other than addressing geometry and therefore may be more appropriately considered a resurfacing, restoration or rehabilitation (3R) project rather than new construction. State transportation agencies generally have developed 3R design criteria that are specific to the needs

Chapter 2: Incorporate Historic Preservation from Project Outset 2-10 of their jurisdiction for all types of highways, except those on the National Highway System (NHS). Planning for Balanced Solutions Sources Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO. Practitioner’s Handbook 07 Defining the Purpose and Need and Determining the Range of Alternatives for Transportation Projects. 2007. Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO. Practitioner’s Handbook 11 Complying with Section 4(f) of the U.S. DOT Act. 2009. Grimmer, Anne E. et al. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Heritage Preservation Services. Washington, DC., Reprinted 1997. National Park Service. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines. http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/ . Transportation Research Board. NCHRP Report 480 A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions. 2002.