Environmental Review Toolkit
 

SHRP2 C19 Expediting Project Delivery

Home Expediting Project Delivery
Constraints Constraints
Strategies Strategies
Meetings and Conferences Meetings and Conferences
Webinars Webinars
Library Library
Contact Us Contact Us

Printer-friendly PDF version (314kB)

ADC50 Mid-Year Meeting July 2017

Section 106 Programmatic Agreements
What Works/What Doesn’t/Lessons Learned

SHRP2 C19 Peer Exchange Report Out
July 16, 2017 – ADC50 Mid-Year Meeting – Minneapolis, MN

strip of four photos: workers putting a large concrete support in place; a working planning meeting; bridge construction at a highway interchange; a curved highway in a rural, mountainous region; and a closeup of a bridge being constructed
Peer Exchange Purpose

To share experiences on how programmatic agreements (PAs) were created and currently function from the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) perspective in an open, non-biased environment.

Peer Exchange Funding

Through the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) C19 Expediting Project Delivery product. C19 identifies 24 strategies for addressing or avoiding common constraints to expedite project delivery, resulting in better projects and environmental outcomes. Programmatic agreements for Section 106 is one of the 24 strategies.

Peer Exchange Facts
  • 3 moderators representing the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
  • 8 panelists representing State DOTs, SHPOs, and FHWA Division Offices
  • 70 participants
  • 70% of the audience members have a PA in their State
ADC50 Mid-Year Meeting participants
Major Themes
Best Practices for Developing a PA
  • Ensure dedicated staff time for PA development
  • Assign a point person to manage the process in each agency
  • Be clear and realistic about the goal and scope of the PA
  • Strong communication throughout the process
Keys to PA Success
  • Trust and open communication between signatories
  • Strong relationships between the DOT and SHPO
  • Managerial support and buy-in helps
PA Component Recommendations
  • Establish reporting requirements between agencies and annual meetings to discuss how the PA is functioning and make any necessary amendments
  • Staff and consultants should meet the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Professional Qualification Standards
  • Consider project monitoring to help build trust and ensure good outcomes
  • If tribes are not a part of a State’s PA, consider creating a separate agreement document with tribes that outlines how they are consulted
PA Benefits
  • Reducing the amount of documentation and coordination for projects with minimal or no effects to historic resources
  • Allowing State DOTs and SHPOs to focus consultation efforts on larger, more complex projects with adverse effects to historic resources
  • Codifying good work between SHPOs and State DOTs, even if no responsibilities are delegated
  • Ensuring consistency when agencies face staff turnover
  • Showing commitment to historic preservation
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) logo
Federal Highway Administration | U.S. DOT logo

For more information on the event, please contact David Clarke (David.Clarke@dot.gov) or MaryAnn Naber (MNaber@achp.gov)