Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations (2025)
Chapter: Front Matter
Creating a Handbook for
Successful No-Effect
and No-Adverse-Effect
Section 106
Determinations
Camilla McDonald
Kate Umlauf
WSP USA Inc.
Kansas City, MO
Terry Klein
SRI Foundation
Corrales, NM
Conduct of Research Report for NCHRP Project 25-65
Submitted June 2024
NCHRP Web-Only Document 412
Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations
© 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the graphical logo are trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/29036
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, APTA, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, or NHTSA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
DISCLAIMER
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors.
The Transportation Research Board does not develop, issue, or publish standards or specifications. The Transportation Research Board manages applied research projects which provide the scientific foundation that may be used by Transportation Research Board sponsors, industry associations, or other organizations as the basis for revised practices, procedures, or specifications.
The Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major program divisions of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to mobilize expertise, experience, and knowledge to anticipate and solve complex transportation-related challenges. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,500 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state departments of transportation, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 412
Monique R. Evans,Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Waseem Dekelbab,Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs, and Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Michael Brooks,Senior Program Officer
Dajaih Bias-Johnson,Senior Program Assistant
Natalie Barnes,Director of Publications
Heather DiAngelis,Associate Director of Publications
Jennifer Correro,Assistant Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 25-65 PANEL
Field of Transportation Planning—Area of Human and Natural Environment
Karen L. Daniels,HNTB, Nashville, TN (Chair)
Jacqueline Farrington,California Department of Transportation, Bayside, CA
Marc Holma,Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond, VA
Mark McMillan,Jacobs, Wethersfield, CT
Marc Munch,Idaho Transportation Department, Boise, ID
Antony F. Opperman,Williamsburg, VA
Jessica Richardson,Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Baton Rouge, LA
Lyle Torp,The Ottery Group, Silver Spring, MD
David S. Clarke,FHWA Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the project consultants and the staff of the Departments of Transportation and State Historic Preservation Offices of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington State, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia for contributing their time and expertise to this project.
SUMMARY
The objective of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-65, Preparing Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations: A Handbook for Transportation Cultural Resource Practitioners, was to produce a handbook for cultural resources professionals at state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and federal and local transportation agencies to aid in developing and effectively communicating Section 106 determinations for findings of No Effect and No Adverse Effect to historic properties from transportation projects.
The project team conducted a literature review to identify and evaluate available information on Section 106 practices across the country concerning these types of effects findings for a wide range of project types and classes of historic properties.
A state of practice survey, beginning with an online survey, was then conducted to delve into each state DOT and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Division Office’s approach to making these findings of effect. The online survey was also sent to a sample of local transportation organizations. To obtain the views and experiences of consulting parties in the Section 106 review process, the online survey was also sent to State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs). Follow-up interviews were conducted, based on the online survey results, with a sample of state DOTs, SHPOs, FHWA Division Offices, private-sector consultants who work for state DOTs, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the Federal Preservation Officers (FPOs) for FHWA, National Park Service, and the Federal Railroad Administration.
This conduct of research report presents a summary of the literature review and state of practice survey conducted to produce a handbook that highlights successful practices and approaches for making findings of No Effect and No Adverse Effect on federally funded or approved transportation projects.
The high response rate for the online survey, followed by the interviews, resulted in a rich dataset for understanding the application of findings of No Effect and No Adverse Effect among the FHWA, state DOTs, SHPOs, THPOs, a few other consulting parties, and private-sector consultants. The online survey also highlighted many of the challenges encountered in making and reviewing these effect findings. Subsequent interviews explored in more depth the results of the online survey, providing the foundation for the handbook for transportation cultural resources practitioners on preparing and effectively communicating findings of No Effect and No Adverse Effect.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Section 106 Guidance, Publications, and Cultural Resource Manuals
Statewide Delegation Programmatic Agreements
Forms and Tools for Making Effects Determinations
Working and Engaging with Section 106 Consulting Parties on Effect Determinations
Best Practices for Documenting Determinations of No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Findings
Documentation Requirements in 36 CFR § 800.11
Defining the Area of Potential Effects
Evaluation of National Register Eligibility and Identifying Character-Defining Features
Boundaries of a Historic Property
No Adverse Effect Findings Based on the Use of Conditions
Commonalities in Assessing and Documenting Findings of No Effect and No Adverse Effect
Online Survey Results (Agencies and Organizations/Consultants)
Consultation and Communication
Consideration of Effects During Project Planning
Archaeological Sites and Traditional Cultural Properties/Places (TCPs)
Tribal Consultation and Engagement
Practitioner Interviews: Practices and Experiences
Resources Used for Making Findings of No Effect and No Adverse Effect
Elements of a Well-Reasoned and Defensible Finding of No Effect and No Adverse Effect
Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Using Conditions to Achieve a Finding of No Adverse Effect
Challenging Projects, Historic Properties, and Findings of No Effect and No Adverse Effect
Archaeological Sites and Traditional Cultural Properties/Places
Consultation and Communication
Tribal Consultation and Engagement
Consideration of Effects to Historic Properties During Planning
References Cited and Bibliography
APPENDIX A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix
APPENDIX B: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Organizations/Consultatns) and Response Matrix
APPENDIX C: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Tribes/NHOs) and Response Matrix
APPENDIX D: List of Interviewees and Interview Questionnaires
NCHRP Web-Only Document 412 contains the conduct of research report for NCHRP Project 25-65 and accompanies NCHRP Research Report 1133: Preparing Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations: A Handbook for Transportation Cultural Resource Practitioners. Readers can read or purchase NCHRP Research Report 1133 on the National Academies Press website (nap.nationalacademies.org).
LIST OF FIGURES
2 Demographic of Agency Survey Respondents
3 Demographic of Agency Survey Respondents
6 Elements Needed to Make a Well-Reasoned and Defensible No Effect or No Adverse Effect Finding
9 Stages in Early Planning Process in Which Agencies Consider Effects to Historic Properties
10 Experience Applying Findings of No Effect and No Adverse Effect to TCPs
11 Experience Applying Findings of No Effect and No Adverse Effect to Archaeological Properties
LIST OF TABLES
1 Forms and Tools for Making Effects Determinations
2 Total State of Practice Online Survey Respondents by State and Agency
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
| AASHTO | American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials |
| ACHP | Advisory Council on Historic Preservation |
| ACRA | American Cultural Resources Association |
| APE | Area of Potential Effects |
| CDF | Character-defining feature |
| CEQ | Council on Environmental Quality |
| CLG | Certified Local Government |
| CP | Consulting party |
| CSO | California DOT Cultural Studies Office |
| DOT | Department of Transportation |
| EA | Environmental Assessment |
| EIS | Environmental Impact Statement |
| ESA | Environmentally sensitive area |
| FHWA | Federal Highway Administration |
| FNAE-SC | Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions |
| FPO | Federal Preservation Officer |
| FRA | Federal Railroad Administration |
| HOP | Highway occupancy permit |
| HUD | Department of Housing and Urban Development |
| LPA | Local Public Agency |
| NAE | No Adverse Effect |
| NHL | National Historic Landmark |
| NAPC | National Alliance of Preservation Commissions |
| NATHPO | National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers |
| NHO | Native Hawaiian Organization |
| NCHRP | National Cooperative Highway Research Program |
| NEPA | National Environmental Policy Act |
| NHPA | National Historic Preservation Act |
| NPS | National Park Service |
| NRHP/National Register | National Register of Historic Places |
| OSA | North Carolina Office of State Archaeology |
| PA | Programmatic Agreement |
| PI | Public involvement |
| PQS | Professionally qualified staff |
| ROW | right-of-way |
| SCA | Society of Commercial Archaeologists |
| SER | Standard Environmental Reference |
| SHPO | State Historic Preservation Office |
| SOIS | Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties |
| SRF | Scoping Request Form |
| STIP | State Transportation Improvement Plan |
| TCP | Traditional Cultural Property/Place |
| THPO | Tribal Historic Preservation Officer |
| TRB | Transportation Research Board |
| USACE | U.S. Army Corps of Engineers |
