Coordination of Section 106 and Coordination of Section 106 and Long Range PlanningLong Range Planning

July 2014

NCHRP 25-25/Task 87

What is “Long Range Transportation Planning?”

• Twenty-Year Planning Horizon• Metropolitan Planning

Organization (MPO) Long Range Planning• Statewide Long Range

Planning• Relationship to

Programming and Project Development

NCHRP Study Goals and Objectives

• Identify state DOTs and MPOs that consider historic preservation during long range planning.• Describe the programs/approaches they use to

consider historic preservation during long range planning.• Discuss the types of historic preservation

information used in long range planning.

NCHRP Study Goals and Objectives (continued)

• Examine the role of SHPOs in long range planning.• Identify the benefits of considering historic

preservation in long range planning.

Study Approach

• Literature review• Initial survey of DOTs and MPOs• Interviews of DOTs, MPOs and SHPOs• Development of case studies

“And the Survey Says…!”

• 52% of state DOT cultural resource management offices, 40% of the DOT planning offices, and 27.7% (i.e., 101) of MPOs responded to the survey.

• Around 50% of the DOTs and 60% of MPOs consider historic preservation in long range planning.

“And the Survey Says…!” (continued)

• Reasons DOTs and MPOs do not consider historic preservation during long range planning:• It is not a priority, or • It is not seen as useful.

• More than 50% of the DOTs and MPOs said the SHPO does not participate in long range planning.

DOTs and MPOs that Consider Historic Preservation

during Long Range Planning:

Why and How?

Why?

Benefits of considering historic preservation during long range planning:• Identifying and avoiding potential fatal

flaws and “red flags.”

• Streamlining and enhancing Section 106 project reviews.

Why? (continued)

More Benefits:•Having a more realistic scope, cost, and schedule for project development. • Acknowledging historic preservation goals and values.

How?

• Geographic Information Systems.

• Scales of analysis – corridors and regions.

How? (continued)

• Consultation with SHPOs

• Consultation with local stakeholders.

Example Case Study – Pennsylvania

• Linking Planning &NEPA (LPN) process• On-line forms linked to the state’s

cultural resource GIS• Cultural resource proximity analysis• Benefits:• Consistent means of collecting

information• Better project scoping,

scheduling and budgets• Reduce project overruns and

project schedules

Example Case Study - Oregon

• Facility plans with 20-year planning horizon.• Environmental background reports for

facility plans.• Information in facility plans refined as

projects are programmed in the STIP.• Benefits:• Determining types of reviews required

during project development/NEPA.• Defining level of effort, cost, and

scheduling of projects.• Addressing public expectations.

Challenges and Hurdles

• DOTs and MPOs view other environmental issues as more important.• SHPOs see no value in participating in

long range planning.• SHPOs do not have the staff or

resources to participate.

Advancing the Consideration of Historic Preservation During Long Range Planning

• Presentations at national meetings: • Transportation Research Board• American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials• Association of Metropolitan Planning

Organizations• National Conference of State Historic Preservation

Officers• Facilitated workshops with FHWA division offices,

state DOTS, MPOs, and SHPOs.

Some Final Observations

• Risk Management

• Historic Preservation, Local Governments, and Long Range Planning

NCHRP Study Panel

• Gail D’Avino, Chair, Georgia Department of Transportation• Margaret Barondess, Michigan Department of Transportation• Craig Casper, Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments• Paul Herskowitz, CDM-Smith• Carolyn Holthoff, Oregon Department of Transportation• Andrea MacDonald, Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Office• Elizabeth B. Rushley, Lawhorn & Associates• Mario Sanchez, Texas Department of Transportation• Lynn Zanto, Montana Department of Transportation• MaryAnn Naber, Federal Highway Administration

Study Project Team

• Terry Klein, SRI Foundation• David Cushman, SRI Foundation• Marie Venner, Marie Venner Consulting• Beverly Bowen, ICF International