American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Special Committee on Research and Innovation

FY2023 NCHRP PROBLEM STATEMENT TEMPLATE

Problem Number: 2023-B-19

Problem Title

7691: Cultural Resources Mitigation: What Works and What Doesn’t?

Background Information and Need For Research

When a transportation project has an adverse effect to historic properties under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the project proponent is required to complete mitigation measures. Development of mitigation is done in consultation with the Section 106 stakeholders. Mitigation measures, such as HABS/HAER/HALS completion, archaeological data recovery and associated research, educational publications, etc., are considered typical mitigation. Different, new or creative mitigation measures are not normally considered due to time constraints and funding limitations. Recent years have seen a shift to greater consideration of creative mitigation alternatives; however, the degrees of success of implemented mitigation are rarely discussed. Creating a list and identifying how to make mitigation measures work for a project, including budget, schedule and type of historic property effected (building, structure, object, site, & district) would enable project proponents the opportunity to develop meaningful cultural resource mitigation for the public benefit. For AASHTO, this research is applicable to other functional units that develop environmental mitigation measures and could provide additional insight to help in further developing and implementing successful mitigation in those areas.

Literature Search Summary

Past research efforts have focused on effective mitigation strategies and more recently, creative mitigation. However, limited attention has been given to the success of each mitigation measure and the degree of their effectiveness with regard to implementation and public benefit. The Research in Progress Database and the Transportation Research Integrated Database gives very broad search results using the terminology “cultural resources mitigation”. Focus on specific cultural resource property types and specific project examples are not readily identifiable. By developing subcategories for commonly encountered historic property types, having a reference list of intended mitigation measures and discussing why a measure was successful or not, would build upon the existing body of research.

Research Objective

The objective of the research is to identify mitigation strategies previously implemented and categorize the degree of success in producing a public benefit. Four tasks are outlined to complete this research objective:

Task 1 - providing a list of the most common historic properties adversely affected by transportation projects based on research and communication with federal and state transportation agencies, SHPOs, the National Park Service and other cultural resource professionals.

Task 2 - identify the mitigation measures that were identified in Task 1, including the resource type, what National Register Criteria the resource was significant under, if it was implemented, and if it was completed.

Task 3 - in consultation with the project proponent, lead agency, consultants or peers, identify the degree to which mitigation measures were successful in producing a benefit to the public and the possible reasons for the degree of success, and any impediments to that success. Certain criteria to measure successful mitigation efforts can include (1) the number and manner of public responses or comments, i.e. public support and level of community impact; (2) involvement or active participation from interested stakeholders and/or cooperation among the different agencies involved; (3) the future benefits of the mitigation to others (does it convey a purpose or have applicable meaning for future generations?); (4) the implementation and fulfillment of the agreed upon terms; and (5) quantitative analysis, such as results of the mitigation tied into cost benefit or cost-effectiveness.

Task 4 - summarize the best practices for mitigation development and implementation based on the research completed in Tasks 1-3. The work should be compiled in short report (50 pages or less) to be utilized as guidance for agencies seeking mitigation options.

Urgency And Potential Benefits

State DOTs struggle with developing cultural resources mitigation to meet the current demands of the public and the requirements of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Identification of mitigation measures that have been successfully implemented or not, would allow state DOTs to more effectively plan a project’s compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and ensure that the project is delivered according to the cost, scope and schedule. This research will also provide project proponents the opportunity to share this research with the public, Section 106 stakeholders and other consulting parties and ensure that everyone is aware of possible mitigation options, giving a starting point for collaborative mitigation development. While this study will focus on State and Federal DOTs, the research will be widely applicable to other federal agencies who would benefit from having mitigation dos and don’ts outlined by historic property type, their sub-categories, and how to implement the measures successfully. With this research, state DOTs will have the opportunity to create more meaningful mitigation measures that benefit the public, which will improve the public trust.

Implementation Considerations

Cultural Resources professionals (SHPOs, State and Federal DOT staff and their consultants) would utilize this research. The research would be implemented within the DOTs throughout the Section 106 compliance process for every project. Additionally, the document could be provided to Section 106 Stakeholders to enable more transparent consultation. This report would enable collaborative consultation on the development of Section 106 mitigation measures and allow for a better awareness of cultural resources and the Section 106 process. The information provided in the report can be distilled by each DOT as needed into a one-page brochure or a pamphlet to best support their own Section 106 consultation. Additionally, the information provided would support public presentations, roundtables, and workshops that seek to develop a project’s cultural resources mitigation measures. This information can be posted on the public meeting page of state DOT websites.

Recommended Research Funding And Research Period

For research objectives outlined above, a total of nine months are expected to acquire the necessary data and produce a short report of approximately 50 pages. One full-time professional ($187,500) and one-part time supporting staff ($93,750) would be required for an estimated total of $281,250. Additional resources, such as web survey service subscription ($25 per month for 3 months) and purchasing articles for research (estimated $150), will be required. An additional two weeks of work is proposed for implementation procedures, such as distribution of report, questions, and presentations for a cost of $7,211.

The research funding requested is for a rounded total of $290,000.

Problem Statement Author(S): For each author, provide their name, affiliation, email address and phone.

Kristina Boykin

Arkansas Department of Transportation

Kristina.Boykin@ardot.gov

501-569-2079

Helen Blackmore

Caltrans, District 4

Helen.Blackmore@dot.ca.gov

510-504-2182

Carey Coxe

Louisianan Department of Transportation and Development

Carey.Coxe@LA.GOV

225-242-4520

Potential Panel Members: For each panel member, provide their name, affiliation, email address and phone.

Person Submitting The Problem Statement: Name, affiliation, email address and phone.