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.
1 This report provides state DOTs, FHWA, SHPOs, and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) with an analysis of the common challenges and successful practices related to the development and execution of project-level Programmatic Agreements (PAs). The research presented in this report was conducted as part of NCHRP Project 25-62 Improving the Efficiency and Consistency of Section 106 Compliance for State DOTs: Strategies for Project-Level Programmatic Agreements and Postwar Commercial Properties. A future publication will present the research on postwar commercial properties. The full range of how state DOTs use project-level PAs is not well documented and practitioners often rely on anecdotal information regarding development and implementation of these agreements. This project focuses on lessons learned and best practices for project-level PAs and highlights how DOTs are successfully using project-level PAs. This report serves as a companion to NCHRP Project 25-25/Task 107, Section 106 Delegation Programmatic Agreements: Review and Best Practices and Quick Reference Guide, which provided state DOTs, FHWA, and SHPOs practical guidance for the application, preparation, modification, and implementation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) delegation PAs.1 Delegation PAs address Section 106 compliance for the FHWAâs Federal-Aid Highway Program within a state and âdelegatesâ decision making that is normally the purview of FHWA to a state DOT. NCHRP Project 25-62 analyzes the use of project-level PAs to better understand current approaches to their development and identify best practices based on input from questionnaire respondents, interviewees, and analysis of PAs collected from across the country. The document is organized to easily communicate the key considerations and questions to ask before and during the development of a project-level PA. To complete the analysis presented in this report, the project team developed and executed the Data Collection and Outreach Plan, detailed in Technical Memorandum 1, Information Collection Plan: Project-Level PAs, which included a questionnaire and interviews with DOTs, SHPOs, FHWA Division Office staff, key staff at the ACHP, tribal liaisons at DOTs, and THPOs concerning their experiences in the development and implementation of project-level PAs. Examples of project-level PAs were provided by questionnaire respondents, interviewees, and NCHRP study panel members. The project team reviewed examples of successful and less successful project-level PAs to understand what works and what does not work in the implementation of these documents. Primary findings After reviewing the completed questionnaires and interviews, the project team assembled a library of 85 project-level PAs. The project team analyzed the documents based on lead agency, number of signatories, participation of Tribes, whether historic properties and adverse effects were known or unknown when the PA was executed, mitigation stipulations, administrative stipulations, appendices, and other areas. This review provided important insight into current practices for developing and consulting on PAs, their content, and execution. The primary findings of this study include the following (see Figure 1): 1 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Protection of Historic Properties, 36 CFR Part 800, as amended 2004.
2 Figure 1. Summary of primary findings. States use project-level PAs for undertakings to customize Section 106 consultation and expedite the environmental review process. ⢠States that do not use project-level PAs typically prefer to use the standard Section 106 process or do not have large, complex projects that require the use of these agreements. ⢠Project-level PAs provide DOTs with greater flexibility in decision making regarding potential adverse effects to historic properties. ⢠Agencies use these agreements for undertakings to establish Section 106 timeframes, expedite review, and address issues early in the process. ⢠Coordination on the project-level PA and sequencing its implementation with the overall project environmental schedule takes place as early as possible to help agencies meet project timelines. ⢠Project-level PAs are a tool for agencies and consulting parties to define appropriate mitigation and implement creative solutions. ⢠Project-level PAs help agencies communicate project understandings between engineers, environmental staff, cultural resource staff, and contractors as part of contractual obligations. ⢠Successful project-level PAs depend on strong partnerships between consulting parties and the mutual trust that must exist among them to execute this type of document. ⢠Education about PAs is an ongoing effort that should be considered as a routine and necessary element to the successful development and implementation of a project-level PA. Agencies should plan to hold training for new staff who are responsible for fulfilling mitigation stipulations or for Section 106 signatories and consulting parties.
