Page 75

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

APPENDIX A: STATE OF PRACTICE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (AGENCIES) AND RESPONSE MATRIX

Preparing Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations State of Practice Survey

RESOURCES

What Agency do you work for?
- □ State DOT
- □ State SHPO
- □ Federal Agency
- □ Other State Agency
- □ Prefer not to say
- □ Other: ___________________________________________________________
What is your role in the agency?
_____________________________________________________________________
Does your agency have any manuals, guidance, policies, forms, tools, etc. that address the following? (Select all the apply)
- □ Defining a project’s APE, as the initial step in laying the foundation for subsequent determinations of effect.
- □ Applying National Register eligibility criteria, identifying character-defining features, identifying, and assessing the aspects of integrity associated with a property.
- □ Defining the boundaries of a property.
- □ Making findings of no effect and no adverse effect and how to document these findings.
- □ Procedures for communicating these findings with SHPOs/THPOs/NHOs, other CPs, and the public.
- □ Other: ___________________________________________________________
Do you have written procedures, guidelines, or policies on reevaluating documentation for National Register listed and eligible properties, based on when these National Register findings were made?
- □ Yes
- □ No
If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A” ______________________________________________________________________

SEE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ABOVE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES

Page 76

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

*2-1. What agency do you work for?*	*2-2. What is your role in the agency?*	*2-3. Does your agency have any manuals, guidance, policies, forms, tools, etc. that address the following? (Select all the apply)*	*Defining a project’s APE, as the initial step in laying the foundation for subsequent determinations of effect*	*Applying National Register eligibility criteria, identifying CDFs, identifying, and assessing the aspects of integrity associated with a property*	*Defining the boundaries of a property*	*Making findings of no effect and no adverse effect and how to document these findings*	*Procedures for communicating these findings with SHPOs/THPOs/NHOs, other CPs, and the public*	*Other*	2-4. Do you have written procedures, guidelines, or policies on reevaluating documentation for National Register listed and eligible properties, based on when these National Register findings were made?	*Yes*	No	*2-4a. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”*
State DOT	Cultural Resources Manager		x	x	x	x	x		No		x
State DOT	Historian - history compliance specialist		x	x	x	x	x		Yes	x		There is some direction about reevaluations in our Section 106 overall PA from 2014
State DOT	Cultural Resources Section Manager		x				x		Yes	x		Programmatic Agreement includes this in a stipulation
State DOT	State Highways Archaeologist	We have none of these. Professional experience is used.						x	No		x	N/A
State SHPO	Administrator of Project Review and Compliance Unit		x		x		x		No		x	n/a
State SHPO	DSHPO						x		No		x	n/a
State DOT	Manager of Cultural Resources program						x		No		x
State SHPO	Lead Regulatory Reviewer - Historic Structures	Concurring with Findings	x	x	x		x	x	Yes	x		Through our National Register Section
State DOT	Staff Historian (built environment Section 106 compliance)		x	x	x	x	x		Yes	x		Information on how my agency conducts the reevaluation of properties can be found in our agency’s Section 106 Programmatic Agreement, in our Procedures Manual, and in our Consultant Checklist. These documents also contain information regarding the topics under question 2-3.
State SHPO	Compliance Officer		x	x	x	x	x		No		x	We don’t have specific guidlines on when to reevaluate eligibility, but our guidelines do address the need to resurvey depending on when/how previous inventory was done.
State SHPO	State Historic Preservation Officer	Inventory guidance		x			x	x	Yes	x		After 5 years if a property becomes NR eligible
State DOT	Architectural Historian		x	x	x	x	x		No		x	N/A
State DOT	Cultural Resource Manager					x			No		x

Page 77

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

*2-1. What agency do you work for?*	*2-2. What is your role in the agency?*	*2-3. Does your agency have any manuals, guidance, policies, forms, tools, etc. that address the following? (Select all the apply)*	*Defining a project’s APE, as the initial step in laying the foundation for subsequent determinations of effect*	*Applying National Register eligibility criteria, identifying CDFs, identifying, and assessing the aspects of integrity associated with a property*	*Defining the boundaries of a property*	*Making findings of no effect and no adverse effect and how to document these findings*	*Procedures for communicating these findings with SHPOs/THPOs/NHOs, other CPs, and the public*	*Other*	2-4. Do you have written procedures, guidelines, or policies on reevaluating documentation for National Register listed and eligible properties, based on when these National Register findings were made?	*Yes*	No	*2-4a. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”*
State SHPO	Deputy SHPO, Staff Archaeologist	None, although they will be added to survey guideline updates						x	No		x
State SHPO	Environmental Review	None of the above						x	No		x	N/A
State DOT	Cultural Resources Unit reviewer (on behalf of FHWA)		x			x	x		Yes	x		The SHPO survey manual provide guidance on when survey and resurvey are needed. We generally do not resurvey NHRP listed properties, but we may provide additional information (CDFs, integrity discussion, historic context) if the information was sparse in the initial nomination or there have been substantial changes to the property since its listing.
State DOT	Cultural Resources Manager		x	x	x	x	x		Yes	x		Guidelines that suggest using aspects of integrity in a very disciplined manner. Most helpful when assessing ABPP-defined boundaries for battlefields. So for example if an area has been previously identified as possessing integrity and is eligible we can make the persuasive argument that through visual documentation and going through the integrity aspects demonstrate which and how many are severely compromised. We may end with the statement that we are not arguing the property’s significance just its integrity. Sometimes in the past this approach has been very successful.
State SHPO	Transportation Archaeology Reviewer		x	x	x	x	x		No		x	N/A
State SHPO	Architectural Historian reviewing 106	We have state specs, which horribly need to be upgraded, but basically outline that the consultation process will follow the regs and NR bulletins						x	Yes	x		In our state specs, if an above ground property hasn’t been evaluated in more than five years, an updated evaluation and effects assessment are needed to ensure that the eligibility hasn’t changed and we have the most up to date information on the resource. For long projects (like 20 year transportation projects), you’ll often see additional properties added with updated reports, new recommendations made, specs changed where effects may be different, etc.

Page 78

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

*2-1. What agency do you work for?*	*2-2. What is your role in the agency?*	*2-3. Does your agency have any manuals, guidance, policies, forms, tools, etc. that address the following? (Select all the apply)*	*Defining a project’s APE, as the initial step in laying the foundation for subsequent determinations of effect*	*Applying National Register eligibility criteria, identifying CDFs, identifying, and assessing the aspects of integrity associated with a property*	*Defining the boundaries of a property*	*Making findings of no effect and no adverse effect and how to document these findings*	*Procedures for communicating these findings with SHPOs/THPOs/NHOs, other CPs, and the public*	*Other*	2-4. Do you have written procedures, guidelines, or policies on reevaluating documentation for National Register listed and eligible properties, based on when these National Register findings were made?	*Yes*	No	*2-4a. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”*
State SHPO	Environmental Review Division Manager		x	x	x	x	x		No		x	N/A
State SHPO	Environmental Review Historian		x	x	x	x	x		No		x	N/A
State SHPO	Transportation Projects Reviewer			x					No		x	n/a
State SHPO	Compliance Archaeologist		x	x		x	x		We have policies, but they aren’t written with a clear date or unambiguous reference to when the national register findings were made			36CFR800.4(c)(1) “The passage of time, changing perceptions of significance, or incomplete prior evaluations may require the agency official to reevaluate properties previously determined eligible or ineligible”.
State SHPO	Compliance Architectural Historian		x	x					Yes	x		We recommend that every undertaking look at properties determined “ineligible” to ensure things have not changed or if the property was determined ineligible due to age (less than 45 years old). We also have each undertaking rerecord a property after 10 years or sooner if significant changes have occurred.
State DOT	Architectural Historian (Cultural Resources)	SHPO guidance						x	No		x	N/A
State SHPO	Section 106 Reviewer for Above Ground Resources		x	x	x	x	x		Yes	x
State SHPO	project reviewer and program manager	Certain state-specific forms are used to document and share findings, however guidance materials generally refer to existing NPS or ACHP material.				x	x	x	Yes	x		State’s survey policy requires a state inventory form update after 10 years, with specifics depending on the situation. While the protocol is not in writing, agencies have used a state inventory form to update NR listed resources for the purposes of a project if an update is warranted.
State SHPO	Section 106 Project Reviewer						x		No		x	N/A
Federal	Environmental		x	x	x	x	x		Yes	x		See:

Page 79

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

*2-1. What agency do you work for?*	*2-2. What is your role in the agency?*	*2-3. Does your agency have any manuals, guidance, policies, forms, tools, etc. that address the following? (Select all the apply)*	*Defining a project’s APE, as the initial step in laying the foundation for subsequent determinations of effect*	*Applying National Register eligibility criteria, identifying CDFs, identifying, and assessing the aspects of integrity associated with a property*	*Defining the boundaries of a property*	*Making findings of no effect and no adverse effect and how to document these findings*	*Procedures for communicating these findings with SHPOs/THPOs/NHOs, other CPs, and the public*	*Other*	2-4. Do you have written procedures, guidelines, or policies on reevaluating documentation for National Register listed and eligible properties, based on when these National Register findings were made?	*Yes*	No	*2-4a. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”*
Agency	Planner											https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/section_106_tutorial/Default.aspx
State DOT	Architectural History Lead		x	x	x	x			No		x
State DOT	Ohio Department of Transportation	We have online CR manual & amended PA w/APE language in process	x					x	No		x
State DOT	Cultural Resources Program Manager		x	x		x	x		Yes	x		We follow OR SHPO guidelines that call for reevaluating after 10 years.
State DOT	Section 106 Project Reviewer					x	x		No		x	N/A
State DOT	Supervising Historic Preservation Specialist			x		x	x		No		x
State DOT	Cultural Resources Program Manager		x			x	x		Yes	x		For archaeology, we follow the USHPO guidance of updates if documentation is more than 10 years old. There are no procedures from the SHPO on updated to historic architecture but we are trying to nail that down with them now.
State DOT	Architectural Historian		x	x	x	x			No		x	N/A
State DOT	Supervisor		x	x	x	x	x		No		x	n/a
Local Government	Preservation Planner			x	x		x		No		x	N/A
State DOT	Senior Architectural Historian		x	x	x	x	x		Yes	x		https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environment-alanalysis/standard-environmental-reference-ser/volume-2-cultural-resources
State DOT	Architectural Historian		x						In draft form	x
State DOT	Senior Architectural Historian						x		No		x	N/A
local government that receives FHWA funding for	Environmental planner for NEPA, state SEPA, and permitting	use guidance from state SHPO, DOT and FHWA						x	use guidance from state SHPO and DOT

Page 80

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

*2-1. What agency do you work for?*	*2-2. What is your role in the agency?*	*2-3. Does your agency have any manuals, guidance, policies, forms, tools, etc. that address the following? (Select all the apply)*	*Defining a project’s APE, as the initial step in laying the foundation for subsequent determinations of effect*	*Applying National Register eligibility criteria, identifying CDFs, identifying, and assessing the aspects of integrity associated with a property*	*Defining the boundaries of a property*	*Making findings of no effect and no adverse effect and how to document these findings*	*Procedures for communicating these findings with SHPOs/THPOs/NHOs, other CPs, and the public*	2-4. Do you have written procedures, guidelines, or policies on reevaluating documentation for National Register listed and eligible properties, based on when these National Register findings were made?	*Yes*	No	*2-4a. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”*
projects
State DOT	I am retired by was head of cultural resources for 25 years		x			x	x	Reevaluation guidance we took from the SHPO.		x
State DOT	Environmental Protection Specialist (Historian)		x	x	x	x	x	No		x	N/A but should probably do that!
State SHPO	State and Federal (section 106) Compliance review for FWHA and NMDOT.						x	Yes	x		The guidance primarily refers to updating documentation on previously recorded properties.
State DOT	Supervisor of the Section 106 group for the Department	We make use of federal guidelines						No		x	N/A
State DOT	Cultural Resource Manager		x	x	x	x	x	No		x	N/A
State DOT	Cultural Resources Supervisor		x	x	x	x	x	Yes	x		We agree to reevaluate NR determinations if the original decision was made more than five years ago. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, from completing a new full evaluation form to confirming the resource’s eligibility within the effect determination documentation.
State DOT	Architectural Historian		x	x	x	x	x	No		x	N/A
State DOT	Cultural resources program manager		x	x	x	x	x	Yes	x		WA State SHPO has a guideline that determinations made more than five years ago be reevaluated.
Federal Agency	FPO		x			x	x	No		x
State DOT	Section Director of Cultural Resource Management section		x	x		x	x	No		x	N/A
Federal Agency	FPOs		x	x	x	x	x	Yes	x		https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/section_106_tutorial/default.aspx
State SHPO	Manager, Regulatory &		x	x	x	x	x	No		x	n/a

Page 81

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

*2-1. What agency do you work for?*	*2-2. What is your role in the agency?*	*2-3. Does your agency have any manuals, guidance, policies, forms, tools, etc. that address the following? (Select all the apply)*	*Defining a project’s APE, as the initial step in laying the foundation for subsequent determinations of effect*	*Applying National Register eligibility criteria, identifying CDFs, identifying, and assessing the aspects of integrity associated with a property*	*Defining the boundaries of a property*	*Making findings of no effect and no adverse effect and how to document these findings*	*Procedures for communicating these findings with SHPOs/THPOs/NHOs, other CPs, and the public*	2-4. Do you have written procedures, guidelines, or policies on reevaluating documentation for National Register listed and eligible properties, based on when these National Register findings were made?	*Yes*	No	*2-4a. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”*
	Compliance
State SHPO	Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer	our website includes information regarding the Section 106 process	x	x		x		Yes	x		we discuss resurvey in our manuals. we also have a 5 year “expiration” date on reviews due to changing perspectives and possible additional information as discussed in 36 CFR 800.
State DOT	Cultural Resources Program Manager	Guidance regarding deliverables to SHPO and CPs and fieldwork standards						Yes			Guidelines based on SHPO’s Guidelines for Survey in Virginia
State SHPO	Environmental Review Coordinator	We use the guidance of the ACHP for these matters						No		x
State SHPO	compliance reviewer	the unchecked options are conveyed during annual trainings and guidance was published jointly with WisDOT	x	x				Handled verbally at annual trainings		x	N/A
State DOT	Cultural Resources Supervisor		x		x		x	No		x
State SHPO	historic resources specialist (regulatory reviewer for above ground resources)		x	x		x	x	it is generally addressed project by project but a rough guide in our office is if the nomination/survey form is older than 5 years a closer examination is made to see if there have been significant alterations made or new historic associations identified		x	see above
State SHPO	106 Coordinator for Archaeology						x	Not sure			N/A
State DOT	Assistant Environmental Administrator		x	x	x	x	x	No		x	N/A

Page 82

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

*2-1. What agency do you work for?*	*2-2. What is your role in the agency?*	*2-3. Does your agency have any manuals, guidance, policies, forms, tools, etc. that address the following? (Select all the apply)*	*Defining a project’s APE, as the initial step in laying the foundation for subsequent determinations of effect*	*Applying National Register eligibility criteria, identifying CDFs, identifying, and assessing the aspects of integrity associated with a property*	*Defining the boundaries of a property*	*Making findings of no effect and no adverse effect and how to document these findings*	*Procedures for communicating these findings with SHPOs/THPOs/NHOs, other CPs, and the public*	2-4. Do you have written procedures, guidelines, or policies on reevaluating documentation for National Register listed and eligible properties, based on when these National Register findings were made?	No	*2-4a. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”*
State DOT	Architectural Historian	We have a working process outline that goes over many of the steps above but doesn’t go into detail.						No	x	N/A
Federal Agency	Environmental Program Manager		x	x	x	x	x	No	x	NA
State DOT	Environmental Specialist 3		x	x	x	x	x	No	x	N/A

Page 83

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

PRACTICES, APPROACHES, and EXPRIENCES

What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Below are some examples. Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:
- □ Well-defined historic property boundaries.
- □ Explicit identification of historic property significance and CDFs.
- □ Explicit identification of associated aspects of integrity.
- □ Clear and comprehensive list of project activities and their locations.
- □ Other:__________________________________________________________
Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.
_______________________________________________________________________
Have you applied indirect effects to your determinations of no effect or no adverse effect?
- □ Yes
- □ No
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________
Have you applied cumulative effects to your determinations of no effect or no adverse effect?
- □ Yes
- □ No
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________
What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects? ________________________________________________________
What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)? ________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?
- □ Yes
- □ No
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________
If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
____________________________________________________________

SEE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ABOVE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES

Page 84

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	Yes	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State DOT	visual and noise assessments, traffic analysis	x	x	x	x	x	none	x	x	Making others, outside of the discipline, aware of these effects and the information required to assess these impacts	Challenges arise with varying project types versus application of methodology with differing resources.	Yes	Urban projects or new location projects are larger in-scale and involve more in-depth analysis.
State DOT	understanding of visual and noise impacts generated by project - so noise analyses and visualizations to study and analyze these impacts. I think a set of at least 30% plans is important in addition to a list of project activities to understand and analyze impacts.	x	x	x	x	x	See comments in other - also a well-defined APE that considers direct and indirect impacts based on knowledge of all project-related activities, including any off-site mitigation, water quality/drainage improvements, noise impacts that trigger analyses (i.e., level 1), etc.	x	x	Making sure we scope visualizations for consultants when there are grade changes, noise walls, etc. on the front end. Also, making sure that the timing of noise analyses and Section 106 analyses are coordinated timing wise so that we have the noise analysis information at the time we are assessing effects to historic properties. Cumulative effects is a hard one - we don’t always know all of the changes that have occurred over time in the past.	insufficient information on scope of work, particularly design work that occurs more on the back end like mobilization sites, water quality ponds, wetland mitigation, etc. This tends to be more relevant for larger projects. For rural properties or large industrial sites, it is also difficult to obtain right of entry, so difficult to assess current condition of property from a long distance away (public rights of way).	Yes	Rural properties or other properties on large sites where we can’t see the properties well from public rights of way and can’t obtain right of entry permissions. Projects in rural areas and small towns often don’t have as robust of research collections so harder to research a historic property and to assess its National Register eligibility.
State DOT	Locations of and extent of direct effects such as easements, ROW acquisitions	x	x	x	x	x	N/A	x	x	Indirect effects based on noise or visual -- a lot of previously documented resources don’t include auditory or visual elements in the discussion of significance so it can be challenging to connect changes or introduction of noise or visual elements to what makes the property significant and to the elements of integrity.	The challenges in MAKING effects is just getting the data we need--ROW plans for example, that can help us know where there will be direct effects to resources. A lot of times we are asked to evaluate effects before we have all the information, so often we have to “worse case” scenario our findings. Also, it’s challenging to evaluate effects to linear resources, such as railroads or irrigation ditches, where we may determine the entire resource is significant, but we’re just looking at the segment in our project area for integrity and as te basis for evaluating effects to the ENTIRE resources. The challenge in REVEWING effects is that most consultants don’t really know how to evaluate the more nuanced effects to resources or even the basic understanding of how to evaluate project effects to resources beyond the obvious-e.g., demolition.	Yes	Challenging projects involve indirect effect analysis--it’s always difficult to evaluate noise and visual --because as I noted previously, most previously documented resources don’t really address these elements under significance. In our next revision of our PA we plan to include guidance on how to evaluate noise and visual effects, so that should provide more consistency.
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None	x	x	SHPO often does not agree with our application of indirect and cumulative effects. They think there should be more.	It is effects to the characteristics which make the property eligible for the NRHP. SHPO, consultants, others do not apply this correctly. We have too many Adverse Effects and NAE findings in my opinion that ITD/Idaho FHWA has to argue differently when we submit a report to SHPO.	No	N/A

Page 85

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	3-2a. Have you applied cumulative effects to your determinations of NE or NAE?	Yes	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State SHPO	clear discussion of the assessment of the undertaking’s effects	x	x	x	x	x	discussion of the project’s purpose and need	x		x	differences of opinion in assessing effects - esp. for indirect and cumu.	assessments of effect for transportation notification systems - pole mounted cameras, gantries, etc. on updated existing highways	Yes	installation of noise walls that may visually affect historic properties, yet are needed for noise abatement
State SHPO	Sufficient supporting documentation - photos, maps, plans, etc.	x	x	x	x	x	see above	x		x	Many federal agencies or delegates don’t even touch indirect/cumulative	Usually insufficient supporting documentation - explaining it in the body of the document is one thing, you have to show it.	Yes	The more complicated/larger the project the more challenging it is, that is where supporting documentation is even more important - simulations, elevations, etc.
State DOT			x	x	x		for archaeological properties, an understanding of if “marginal” deposits, i.e., low density/party disturbed deposits contribute to significance	x		x	Well, there is disagreement among ACHP and other agencies as to what “indirect’ vs. “direct” actually means; cumulative effects criteria are VERY vague. One issue that has come up is if effects that have occurred to a property prior to NHPA and NEPA ever existing (60+ years ago) should be considered as part of cumulative. And if so, how far back should we consider effects - 100 years ago, 200 years ago?	There are many - one is the classic situation of noise barrier that provides an acoustic benefit to the property, screens a non-historic viewshed, but because it is a change to setting, there is dispute over whether the effect is adverse or not adverse.	Yes	More complex projects result in more complex effect findings
State SHPO		x	x	x	x		none	x		x	That the designers really don’t understand the process and what it means.	That the designers really don’t understand the process and what it means.	Yes	When they want what they want, no question.
State DOT		x	x	x	x		A variety of attachments that help visually explain the nature of the project activities and their proximity to resources, such as project construction plans, drawings and exhibits, maps, photographs, and mock-ups.	x	I have always considered the potential for cumulative effects on properties for each project. However, it can be challenging to determine what future work might lead to cumulative effects, and it can be challenging to determine in the present that the latest project represents	x	Indirect effects to visual or setting aspects of a property can be a little challenging, particularly because character-defining visual and setting elements are not often addressed in older property documentation. However, my agency has experimented with a number of tools to help increase understanding of and accuracy in determining those kinds of effects which have been very helpful on projects. Determining noise, vibration, and other auditory and atmospheric indirect effects is also very challenging, partly because existing guidance on noise and air quality does not directly address historic properties, and again because of poor documentation of properties in the past such that it is unclear if something like a quiet environment is a character-defining aspect of a property. Cumulative effects are very challenging, because they can be nearly impossible to quantify, particularly if my agency is making changes to a setting or landscape that has already been altered by others (i.e. my agency is giving money to a local government for streetscape improvements, but that local government has already constructed a project or two to	Every project is unique and presents its own challenges. Some include highway widening or realignment (at what point is widening or realigning adverse?); streetscape and micromobility improvements on main streets and residential roads where the modernization of the streetscape may remove historic elements (such as street trees, street lawns, setbacks, etc.); sidewalk and curb ramp projects that may remove original historic materials such as brick pavers, flagstone sidewalks, street signs, and sidewalk stamps); construction of pedestrian bridge overpasses, viaducts, and other large-scale features that may present a significant visual change to surrounding properties; rehabilitating bridges for pedestrian use when that may involve removing historic materials in order to add required safety improvements, such as replacing original bridge rail.	Yes	Major streetscape improvements, particularly involving the loss of landscaping features, historic materials, or elements of the historic setting; substantial roadway widening or realignment; rockfall mitigation measures along visually sensitive corridors; projects within NHL boundaries; projects on or requiring coordination with military bases; projects with significant public opposition; projects involving irrigation ditches where portions must be piped, buried, or realigned.

Page 86

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	3-2a. Have you applied cumulative effects to your determinations of NE or NAE?	Yes	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
							cumulative effects over time. There can be a “death by a thousand cuts” situation, but this can be difficult identify and resolve.		modernize elements of a historic streetscape). At what point is the work a cumulative adverse effect, and who gets left holding that bag? At what point is it death by a thousand cuts? How do you quantify whether moving heavy truck traffic off a historic main street will result in an economic loss and business closures, versus perhaps creating a safer, ultimately more walkable, attractive, and vibrant downtown because heavy traffic has been moved? Unless we know of actual upcoming future projects, it can be hard to imagine potential future scenarios and then determine with any degree of accuracy if those scenarios could have a cumulative adverse effect.
State SHPO	x	x	x	x	Full consideration of both indirect and direct effects.	x		x	Often the agency doesn’t provide sufficient contextual information to fully evaluate cumulative effects.	For bridge replacements, the agency often fails to consider staging and deposition areas. For roadway projects, often they don’t address the road’s eligibility in the original submission.	Yes	Bridge replacement/modification projects are often especially challenging because local community groups feel strongly about the bridges and often become involved as CPs, but agencies often take the side of the engineers and base their decisions on cost and safety standards.
State SHPO		x	x	x	Clear explanation of eligiblity or non eligible. No cut and paste.	x		x	None	None	Yes	Large multi-year transportation projects
State DOT	x	x	x	x	None	x		x	Proposed design versus physical construction.	Direct correlation of area impact to properties significance	Yes	Number/complexity of resources and complexity of project
State DOT	x	x		x	none	x		x	Ensuring the engineers and public understand the difference. Extremely far-removed visual effects. Past effects and how they play into current undertakings.	review within historic districts. cultural landscapes	No	n/a
State SHPO	x	x	x	x	If the finding is ‘no adverse effect,’ explaining why - how do the listed items intersect when evaluating the criteria of adverse effect	x		x	The challenge is not in making the finding, but in communicating it to the project proponent in terms they understand.	A lack of context for understanding significance and CDFs.	Yes	Sidewalks in town greens - Although they are minimally invasive, they are not in keeping with the character of the green and they spur cumulative development: monuments, benches, lighting, gazebos....
State SHPO	x	x	x	x	Period of significance	x		x	defining and identifying what indirect and cumulative effects are, and the effects they can have on different types of historic properties	guidance on how to assess effects, and the above elements concerning well-defined boundaries, periods and areas of significance, CDFs, etc.	Yes	Projects where the scope of a project is used to justify truncated or abbreviated historic property-identification efforts

Page 87

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	Yes	No	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State DOT			x	x	x		none	x	x		lack of understanding at the consultant level of the ACHP policy on indirect effects.	It seems that people aren’t willing to simply state there is no effect to a property even if a property is present. DOTs prefer to assess effects to the property as a safety measure.	No	NA
State DOT	Describing and planning for the worst case scenario.	x	x	x	x	x	See other	x		x	Developing cumulative effects is much more laborious on our and FHWA’s part. How far or wide do you cast the net in identifying projects? How far back in time does one go? Plus I thought we were guided in the concept that you can’t have cumulative effects if your project does not adversely affect a resource.	Bridges are the hardest due to their 3 D qualities; especially metal truss types. Anymore we concede that the activity no matter how minor will have some sort of an effect if a known historic property is present. Our SHPO has drawn a hard line in the sand recently. Thus pipe replacements must be coordinated if there is a federal permit and the project is located within an eligible battlefield. EVEN though the failing pipe is already there!	Yes	Bridge replacement in historic districts and see above about pipe replacements in battlefields.
State SHPO		x	x	x	x		None	x		x	None	None	Yes	Some areas requiring survey are denied access by landowners, phased projects, conditional concurrences.
State SHPO	Where the project may directly or indirectly impact the resource. Clear recommendations for A-C (and Criteria Considerations, if applicable). Good photographs (so important, and of more than just the primary facade). Efforts to minimize effects (if a NAE). Good description of alternatives (if multiple alts that may impact historic properties). Clear CP information, as applicable, especially for recommended NAEs. Any applicable replanting or rebuilding necessary to get to a NAE. Any landscape changes that may impact the CDFs (setting, location, design).	x	x	x	x	x	See abobe.	x	x		Cumulative effects can be more difficult to discuss when reviewing transportation - often it becomes more of an indirect discussion than cumulative discussion. Most consultants who work on major transportation projects are good (at least in KY), discussing potential direct AND indirect impacts for transportation projects.	Most of the time a NHPA finding is cut and dry. Sometimes, the project will originally be an AE, but transportation projects are generally good at attempting to avoid an AE, particularly due to 4f concerns. It is in their benefit to avoid AEs, present multiple alternatives, or tweak project plans so that there aren’t complications with an EIS, NHPA, or individual 4f.	Yes	The more CPs there are, the more voices and education that has to occur. Not everyone understands 106, so it can be a long process. But, this is how we at SHPO learn, as well as at transportation, what impacts might be of concern to the locals, site history, significance, etc. Making sure transportation is a good lead in large consulting parties projects is key, as SHPO does not have the capabilities to lead 106 discussions when there’s, 10, 20, or even 50 CPs.

Page 88

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	Yes	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State SHPO		x	x		x		presence of previously unidentified historic properties depending on nature of effect	x	x	lack of willingness of applicant to provide additional information outside of APE/direct effects (claiming access issues, etc.) as well as unwillingness to assess indirect/cumulative effects (i.e. atmospheric, increased traffic, etc.)	the lack of anticipated increase in traffic as accommodated by new bridge replacements of increased volume, etc. and what those effects might have atmospherically and cumulatively - as well as assessing widespread replacements of particular bridge types that then lead to the decreased or complete removal of a particular type	bridge replacement projects as well as large spread roadway widening come to mind however the challenge is really dependent on the applicant and their willingness to provide full information	see above.
State SHPO	Understanding of existing agreement documents between the agency and SHPO that govern Section 106 procedures for that particular agency	x	x	x	x	x		x	x	The severity of indirect effects is harder to gauge and it can be more difficult to relate the impacts of the indirect effect to specific areas of integrity	Many projects that convert intersections along historic roadways that are considered NRHP-eligible from traditional designs to roundabouts are considered to have no adverse effect. When reviewing projects independently of one another, this seems true, however, it appears that eventually a tipping point will be reached where enough intersections have been converted that a design element of the historic roadway will have been lost without ever having been considered an adverse effect. This issue also appears in projects that propose to add sidewalks along segments NRHP-eligible roadways where the rural shoulder is considered a contributing element.	Yes	See answer for 3-3 for some specific examples of more challenging circumstances. Bridge replacements tend to be pretty straightforward. Projects that involve rail crossings or where an NRHP-eligible railroad are in the APE can sometimes be a little more challenging because there may be alterations to the railroad but it is often argued that the alterations are minor when considered in the context of a resource that is hundreds of miles long.
State SHPO			x	x	x		None (Though possibly on a case-by-case basis)	x	x	cell phone co-locations, solar, and wind projects can cause cumulative effect issues. (i.e. what is the tipping point for TOO many to become an adverse effect) Also signage can become a visual adverse effect when there are too many signs in a given area it can be come an indirect OR cumulative effect issue	Weighing the needs of MASH and other highway standards against historic resources. Sourcing steel backed timber guardrail. The general aesthetic of form-liner products. Finding qualified trades people to work on historic steel, or stone bridges.	No
State SHPO	1) evaluation of all cultural resouces within APE, so all parties know what qualifies as a historic property. This may require consultation with tribes or others	x	x	x	x	x	What locations received a pedestrian survey, with rational explaining why survey methods were appropriate	x	x	Indirect and cumulative are harder to define and require some level of hypothesizing and considering future hypotheticals. The area of indirect effects is often much larger, and agencies are sometimes reluctant to conduct identification efforts in that larger area.	Incorrect APE definitions, incomplete identificiation efforts. For example: if replacing a bridge the agency should consider not only if the bridge is historic, but also if the road is historic.	Yes	Projects where the Section 106 responsibilities are delegated to entities unfamiliar with the federal law (like cities, counties, or engineering companies)

Page 89

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	3-2. Have you applied indirect effects to your determinations of NE or NAE?	Yes	Yes	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State SHPO	Project plans	x	x	x	x	x	Consideration of indirect effects (e.g. new interchange = commercial development)		x	x	That most the consultants and agencies do not know how handle indirect and cumulative effects and still are in the mindset that visual effects are indirect, even though they are not.	We always go back and forth on whether a bridge is a contributing feature to a road, and replacement of a historic bridge would be an adverse effect to the road. The transportation department often makes a finding of NHPA, when it should really be a NAE finding.	Yes	Road widening projects and introduction of new lanes and how that practice overtime can adversely affect the historic road (cumulative)
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None		x	x	Indirect and cumulative effects are harder to quantify and identify.	lack of detail project description and project actions	Yes	Canals, culverts, cattle tunnels, RRFB / street lighting
State SHPO	How the undertaking will affect aspects of integrity	x	x	x	x	x	none		x	x	Many consultants and federal agency staff do not look beyond physically direct and viewshed analyses of effects. It is hard to get buy-in for indirect and cumulative effects since they are more abstract/not as obvious. It is also hard when it is a larger project that multiple federal agencies are involved with. We have reasonable cumulative effects because there are multiple parts to the larger undertaking, but federal agencies will often only consider their portion of the larger undertaking, but without their portion the project as a whole would not be all that feasible or their portion of the undertaking is directly causing or caused by another portion.	Segmenting the undertaking when another federal agency is involved with the larger undertaking but with a different portion, insufficient eligibility determinations that do not fully assess eligibility for Criteria A and B, lack of understanding of which aspects of integrity are integral to historic properties’ significance and therefore not assessing adverse effects in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5. Using a common type argument for Criterion C.	Yes	Large projects with multiple agencies.
State SHPO	CDFs may not be necessary, but identification of contributing and non-contributing features may be critical. For example, CDFs might be important for a bridge rehab project but overkill for another type of project’s impacts.	x	x	x	x	x	At times, thinking broader than hard data is important. For example, a property only eligible for architecture can still result in effects or even adverse effects with adjacent changes, even if no physical impacts are proposed.	Yes, using both the former and current definition s of direct/indirect.	x	x	It’s harder to engage other agencies/project team members to thoroughly evaluate non-physical, reasonably foreseeable, and cumulative effects. Public input tends to recognize the potential for these more readily.	There’s been discussion over the years over what constitutes no adverse effect/adverse effect when dealing with full replacement of non-track historic railroad infrastructure. Thus far we’ve leaned towards adverse effect findings, but our state DOT hasn’t always been in full agreement.	No	n/a
State SHPO		x	x	x	x		None		x	x	Full project details may not be available yet.	1) Design of appropriate streetscapes within commercial historic districts. 2) Assessing effects on very large historic properties such as rural historic districts, historic irrigation features, and historic road corridors.	Yes	1) Assessing effects to historic bridges often requires experience and expertise.
Federal Agency		x	x	x	x		None		x	x	Indirect and cumulative effects can be subjective.	Concurrence from SHPO	Yes	Replacing/repairing historic bridges

Page 90

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	3-2. Have you applied indirect effects to your determinations of NE or NAE?	Yes	No	Other	3-2a. Have you applied cumulative effects to your determinations of NE or NAE?	Yes	No	Other	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State DOT	The project design -- to us, all of the above is valuable but needs to be understand vis-a-vis the project impacts.	x	x	x		x	Noted in ‘other’ but project impacts are central -- direct and indirect.		x				x			Just getting folks to understand how these may apply -- there have been very few indirect and cumulative findings. Typically only for EIS or EA projects.	What we think, vs. FHWA, vs. SHPO, vs. the public. And even within our team, varying opinions.	Yes	When the public is closely watching a project, you get a wide range of input.
State DOT	Project designed measures to minimize/avoid effects & Consulting Party input.	x	x	x	x	x	Measures to minimize/avoid effects that are part of the project design. Also, input from the Section 106 CPs.		x					x		Challenge is ensuring the APE is reasonable in light of the undertaking.	No Adverse Effect - for example - The project will remove 1 historic era lamppost. Remaining 23 contiguous lampposts are protected from harm. The one to be removed is located immediately adjacent to existing intersection to be improved (at the end of the series of 23). Measures to avoid any additional impacts to contributing features have been included in design. The eligible district was identified as part of ODOT’s review of the project (through “good faith effort”) and notified project team early to ensure measures to avoid/minimize were included in design. The SHPO views 36 CFR 800.5a and removal of a contributing feature (even if just one of a series) as adverse effect. Our view is that the context and intensity of the undertaking must be considered and whether the federal action diminishes the significance of the resource so that it is no longer eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. An adverse effect finding due to the removal of one lamppost would trigger an Individual 4f. In the end, the SHPO concurred with no adverse effect.	Yes	Reevaluations are difficult on multiphase or EIS/EA type of projects. For example, the Ohio SHPO staff reviewers are new and not familiar with the projects. We have found that having a pre-meeting with the SHPO and project team to explain history of project, what has changed, and to hear their concerns/questions prior to submitting a formal request for review/effect streamlines the review process. BIGGEST CHALLENGE: establishing the appropriate APE - commensurate with action. The Ohio SHPO’s opinion is that if a project has any involvement with a parcel the resource/resources associated with it must be evaluated (or even a much broader area). Regardless of the context and intensity, setting, results of literature review, public/CP input. For example, they asked for the NR evaluation of all resources within an area that was redeveloped as part of an urban renewal project/plan in the City. The impact of the project was limited to minor Temporary/Permanent ROW immediately adjacent to existing infrastructure (interstate, roadway, sidewalk, parking lot, bridge) and no design features, structures, buildings would be removed/altered. The SHPO viewed the entire historic era urban renewal footprint as the APE which was not commensurate with the context and intensity of the undertaking. The PH I reevaluation report evaluated the urban renewal area by providing a context rather than evaluating each building in the broader area. The PH I reevaluation limited individual building review to the few properties that would be impacted and supported the non-eligibility as part of an urban renewal

Page 91

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	No	Yes	No	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
															district. In the end, we were able to support the results of our identification efforts. Other examples include - road diet projects where the roadway would be reduced, and pedestrian access/safety would be enhanced. ROW was limited to asphalt parking lot and minor temporary to install ADA ramps. The SHPO questioned why we did not evaluate all properties along the entire corridor (multiple blocks within a densely populated urban area).
State DOT	For the above, applicable to portions of the property within the APE for archaeological findings. For long, linear projects, we routinely consider only if portions of the archaeological site within the APE contribute or not to the eligibility of the overall site. Built environment resources are almost always considered as a whole, even if they extend outside of the APE.	x	x	x	x	x	The resource is not part of a larger district or other cultural landscape or TCP.	x		x		They are challenging to quantify accurately.	Disagreement with SHPO on occasion. This is rare though.	Yes	It of course depends upon what Tribes and/or CPs feel about a resource being affected. And avoidance alternatives can be challenging to coordinate with project engineers.
State DOT	Access to information regarding previous surveys & evals of resource(s) involved	x	x		x	x	None.	x		x		Conveying them to non-specialists, especially management.	Maintaining consistent processes and quality control in light of constant turnover at other agencies and within the DOT itself.	Yes	“Batch” projects can be difficult. Also dealing with certain external agencies (both State and Federal) that show a lack of involvement or leadership can make the process difficult.
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None.		x		x	Providing convincing evidence over time that destruction or demolition of a type of resource constitutes as a cumulative effect, particularly with historic bridge replacements. Also, buy-in from upper management.	None.	Yes	Typically, a project with an Adverse Effect is more difficult and in Rhode Island there have been a dozen or more historic bridge replacements in the last five years.

Page 92

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	No	Yes	No	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None	x		x		We most commonly discuss cumulative effects for linear archaeological sites, where we need to do a high-level evaluation of the whole site to argue if the current impact contributes to a cumulative effect. We will rarely evaluate indirect effects in a formal way and it is not part of our standard surveys. So if indirect effects may be an issue with a resource we need to think of that early in the project so those data points can be included in the survey scope of work (SOW) or have later field visits to gather the data.	Our methodology is fairly standard across all project types. A challenge may be with smaller projects with pedestrian ramps or signal installation/replacement where the decision about property acquisition or TCE may change throughout or late in the project requiring additional survey or evaluation.	No
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None		x		x	Not a good understanding of their definitions.	Not a good understanding of their definitions.	Yes	Projects with NRHP-listed and eligible resources.
State DOT	degree/level of each aspect of integrity	x	x	x	x	x	degree/level of each aspect of integrity	x		x		accessing information about pass projects/effects	unsure	Yes	determining effects to historic districts, linear resources, and active facilities
Local Government			x	x	x		none	x			x	Vague location maps, difficulty determining viewshed	little documentation of historic infrastructure	We see tower/antenna projects far more than anything else.	N/A
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None	x		x		Finding all the documentation for cumulative effects and convincing people indirect effects are real.	Inadequate (not in-depth enough) analysis by consultants	Yes	Living historic resources
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None	x		x		lack of guidance on cumulative effects;	Defining what of the project is ours (when it is part of a larger activity undertaken by another federal agency). Explaining the information to SHPO--how to make them understand what is happening with grade changes in a project when they are already severe--changing slope and alignment of a roadway on a hill in a historic district.	No	n/a
State DOT	Visual analysis		x	x	x		None	x		x		Recent legal cases defining direct v. indirect	For NAE, at what point does a rehab become AE if extensive in-kind material replacement is required. Examples include both covered bridges and steel trusses.	Yes	Rehabilitation in-kind. At what point, such as percent of original material replaced, does a NAE rehabilitation become an adverse effect?
local government		x	x	x	x		None		x		x		None.	Yes	How to address TCPS, especially when they are not recorded

Page 93

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	3-2. Have you applied indirect effects to your determinations of NE or NAE?	Yes	3-2a. Have you applied cumulative effects to your determinations of NE or NAE?	Yes	No	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State DOT	We relied heavily on programmatic approaches, especially defined project activities that automatically were classified as No Effect.		x		x	x	None	No sure what is meant by indirect effects. We did consider noise, vibration, etc., which would be outside the property boundaries.	x	Generally never, as most projects had very confined limits of independent utility for CE’s.		x	Shifting FHWA interpretations of which is which.	Getting good project design info, especially with respect to staging.	Yes	P3 projects especially challenging, since the project description can change dramatically in final design, but not loop back.
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None		x		x		Direct are easy. Indirect a bit harder. Cumulative, so far, we have not made a determination of adverse cumulative effects. No one wants to go there?	Lack of Right of Entry. Unresponsiveness from descendants or others that may help us learn history of a property or area.	Yes	Projects requiring lots of new ROW/displacements are always going to be more challenging if historic properties are present.
State SHPO		x	x	x	x		Early consultation to identify CPs and their respective responsibilites.		x		x		One challenge is getting project plans early in the planning process that are sufficiently developed to assess visual or indirect, or cumulative effects.	Listed or contributing bridges: The federal agencies have determined that bridges are no longer eligible due to lack of maintenance or, assuming maintenance projects conducted under PA exemptions have affected the integrity of design, materials, or workmanship such that bridges are no longer eligible, resulting in findings of no effect or no adverse effect to districts. There have also been cases where, the SHPO concurred with findings no adverse effect based on in-kind replacement. Then, a decade later, the federal agency re-evalauted the same bridge as not eligible because the in-kind replacement used treated wooden structural elements to prevent rot.	Yes	Federal agencies and contractors working in listed or eligible historic districts don’t understand how to define property boundaries relative to project APEs, or they misunderstand how to assess effects visual or atmoshperic affects to districts..
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None		x		x		Agreement on the definitions.	Effects from the project vs. land use decisions that influence the need for the project; i.e., increased traffic needing improvements vs. increasing traffic from the project.	No	N/A
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None		x		x		the variables associated with cumulative effects; it’s difficult to forecast and to quantify whether the cumulative effects are related to the project	Having the appropriate information early	Yes	The different between ‘pure preservation’ and Cultural Resource Management (CRM) work can be difficult to navigate with CPs

Page 94

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	No	3-2a. Have you applied cumulative effects to your determinations of NE or NAE?	Yes	No	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State DOT	Depending on the SOW, an understanding of ways the project may have cumulative effects.	x	x	x	x	x	none	x				x	The aspects of integrity most often indirectly affected by projects (setting, feeling and association) are more subjective and intangible than effects to materials, workmanship, and design. Cumulative effects are always a challenge; there are no guarantees that any action will have a definitive and quantifiable reaction. We also struggle with cumulative effects from HOP permits; what’s our APE? How do we ignore development project’s effects to historic resources when the HOP permit is part of what makes the project successful?	One challenge Pennsylvania regularly faces is replacement of small bridges in large rural historic districts. What makes a state standard bridge with no distinguishing design features or use of local materials contribute to, for instance, an agricultural historic district? Is it the location and presence of a crossing, allowing farmers to get their products to markets, that contributes to the district’s significance? Or is it the physical bridge itself? If it’s the former, then is its replacement with a bridge of similar size and scale adverse? If it’s the latter and it is being replaced with a similar bridge, then is it adverse? Is there a standard design that could be used in these situations to either avoid or mitigate for an adverse effect?	Yes	Bridges in rural areas are a challenge. In addition to the questions we wrestle with above, we also struggle with what is the appropriate level of effort to identify what might be a very large rural historic district when the project involves an online replacement of a culvert with minimal ROW acquisitions in the surrounding quadrants. What identification of resources is commensurate with such a small SOW?
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None		x			x	Defining cumulative effects within a project / area is particularly challenging.	Determining how much effect is “no” effect and how much is “adverse” effect.	All are challenging for diff reasons / as the variables change.	N/A
State DOT			x	x	x		None	x			x		The biggest challenge is getting agreement with CPs is agreement on what are indirect or cumulative effects caused by the project, versus existing effects or no change to the existing effects (such as noise).	We’ve had challenges with noise effects (i.e., what level of noise increase rises to an adverse effect) and with cumulative effects, in terms of how much traffic increase rises to an adverse effect.	Yes	Projects where noise is a potential effect on historic residences have been a challenge, as have projects where the purpose is not to increase capacity (e.g., safety projects) but where a consulting party thinks that traffic (and therefore noise or vibration) will increase as an unplanned result of the safety improvement.
Federal Agency		x	x	x	x		N/A	x			x		reasonable and foreseeable for indirect and cumulative	level of effort provision differs from SHPO to SHPO	Yes	projects involving rail lines where activities are not covered under the Program Comment
State DOT		x	x		x		Clear understanding of other types of impacts, such as traffic noise and vibration impacts; often we need a good understanding of the amount of new ROW to be acquired at the historic property location, depending on the type of project activity	x		Kind’ve? We aren’t very consistent or reasoned with any cumulative effects determinations.	x		Lack of understanding of where CDFs are, especially in the case of landscape-type features like driveways, fences, yards, trees, etc. Typical survey reports tend to focus solely on buildings and ignore the surroundings.	Not having a good understanding of the potential indirect effects and needing that information from others than the cultural resource staff. Getting that information in a timely manner from other subject matters.	No	N/A

Page 95

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	3-2. Have you applied indirect effects to your determinations of NE or NAE?	Yes	Yes	No	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
Federal Agency			x	x	x		none		x	x		each state SHPO and THPO when on tribal land looks at this differently.	not enough information to make an informed effect determination.	Yes	It’s not just due to the NEPA class of action but the location of the project in relationship to identified historic properties.
State SHPO		x	x	x	x		Input from CLG	We have used the language	x		x	We need better language to describe these effects	Our state DOT uses a fairly rigid set of terms	Yes	Projects with multiple components, resources, and CPs
State SHPO		x	x	x	x		none		x	x		Evaluation of indirect and cumulative effects can be influenced by personal experience and understanding.	NO effect is not that hard. however, when there is a take of adjacent property associated with an historic property, that can be a difficult discussion to determine if it’s adverse effect simply because you are taking historic property. Sometimes, it does not rise to an adverse effect given the location of the bridge in relation to the historic features of the property. Sometimes, replacement of sidewalks can take property associated with historic resources. but it that truly an adverse effect? these situations require discussion rather than assuming one specific right answer.	Yes	They are challenging due to the size and scale of the project, its location, its National Register status or NHL status, level of community involvement, and other issues.
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None		x		x	I don’t really see indirect effects and cumulative effects as the same thing. Indirect effects typically involve project-related impacts to a cultural resource, while (in my opinion) cumulative effects involve impacts from several different projects or circumstances (development, planning, or zoning) over a period of time. At this time, VDOT deals primarily with indirect effects only.	Bridge replacements and rural rustic road projects are typically not challenging, unless the bridge is a contributing resource to a historic district.	Yes	Bridge replacement projects where the bridges are either eligible or a contributing resource to a historic district. Some bridge replacements are simple, often driven by the locality due to safety concerns. Others, the public will maintain that the 100-plus year old bridge is perfectly fine and needs to remain in place even though it jeopardizes public safety. Disagreements over eligibility. VDOT will make an eligibility recommendation, the SHPO will concur, but then members of the public will disagree without supporting evidence.
State SHPO	Address setting, including current/historic noise levels	x	x	x	x	x	None		x	x		Having good examples to explain why you believe there are such effects.	Properly defining APE for projects that generate foreseeable associated development	Yes	Major improvements to interstate routes that create historic and social justice issues

Page 96

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	No	Yes	No	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State SHPO	complete land use history, detailed discussion of minimization efforts	x	x	x	x	x	none	x		x		transportation projects can have very long histories so there is some difficulty explaining cumulative effect when you might also have changes over time in the way people think about preservation and preservation work. Considerable verbal gymnastics is required to explain cumulative effect AND something like changes in process, or changes in eligibility due to restoration or rapidly disappearing resources.	Piecemeal eligibility determinations on common, statewide projects like bridge replacements. Also WisDOT is doing far fewer corridor studies these days so we aren’t getting those solid contexts in a given area.	Yes	Those that are most challenging for me are urbanization of rural properties. Seems like the hardest conversations and the most pushback from consultants are about terraces and sidewalks.
State DOT		x	x	x	x		It is important to consider indirect effects of projects on potentially historic sites. Noise, vibrations, water, etc.	x			x	Getting others to buy into indirect effects and potential avoidance of those.	I am constantly told that the transportation project must happen, so I need to find a way to allow it. No effect is a lot easier, but a no adverse effect is preferred to any sort of mitigation. Mitigation costs money and takes time and effort.	Yes	Typically anything involving prehistoric sites that need to be avoided are trickier. We do have a lot of bridge projects coming down the pipe that make people nervous.
State SHPO	project plans and specifications	x	x	x	x	x	the detail needed to evaluate effects is dependent on the complexity of the undertaking and the types/conditions of the historic resources found in the APE (if any).	x		x			Insufficient documentation of the basics in the submittal to SHPO and CPs. Lack of training for project managers/engineers regarding Section 106 and historic resources.	this mainly relates to if projects have had early and clear communication about the review process with interested and consulting parties	na
State SHPO			x	x	x		None		x		x	None	None	Yes	Poorly defined details of earthmoving involved with undertaking

Page 97

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-1. What are the elements needed in making a well-reasoned and defensible finding of no effect and no adverse effect? Select all that apply. Please add any other elements you consider important:	Well-defined historic property	Explicit identification of historic	Explicit identification of associated	Clear and comprehensive list of	Other	3-1a. Please list any other elements you consider important that did not fit above. If none, write “None”.	Yes	Other	Yes	No	3-2b. What challenges if any, have you experienced in making or reviewing direct vs. indirect and cumulative effects?	3-3. What challenges have you experienced in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain types of transportation projects (e.g., bridge replacements, rural capacity projects, etc.)?	3-3a. Have some types of projects been more challenging than others?	3-3b. If “Yes” please explain. If “No” write “N/A”.
State DOT	Good understanding of your APE	x	x	x	x	x	Depending on your project scope and your context, you may need to have well-defined boundaries and explicit identification of significance, CDFs, and associated aspects of integrity. However, on many smaller projects, if you have a good understanding of your project scope and your APE, you don’t necessarily need to do explicit research on every property to determine that there is no effect or no adverse effect.		x		x	Our indirect effects have mainly focused on the potential for vibration impacts and those have been dealt with through monitoring agreements.	We have had challenges on projects that are providing safety improvements in historic districts such as crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, ADA compliant crossing, etc. Our stance has been that the changes benefit the district and make it safer and do not alter the CDFs to the point of jeopardizing integrity or eligibility and therefore, have no adverse effect. The SHPO has argued that we are changing the way the historic district looks and therefore, it is an adverse effect. We have occasional challenges on historic bridge replacement and rehabilitation projects as well for a variety of reasons.	Yes	Projects in historic districts are probably most challenging because there some reviewers believe that any change to any CDFs is automatically an adverse effect when we would state that depending on the situation, it could easily be no adverse effect. Historic bridges also pose a challenge because the difference between adverse and no adverse effect can come down to the type of railing used on a rehabilitation, and sometimes it’s hard to come to an agreement between all the parties involved.
State DOT	Identification of specific historic elements within the property boundaries. For example, is the stone retaining wall significant or not?	x	x		x	x	Sometimes the history of the roadway/transportation feature can be important. For example, if the road width has changed significantly over time, that can be an important part of an effect determination.	x		x		One of the biggest challenges is determining for cumulative effects is what is the proverbial straw. The initial construction is often the biggest impact, and are later, relatively small changes (in comparison) really changing the conditions much?	Every type of project can be challenging, I can’t say there is one particular type that is more challenging than another as it is so contextual and resource based.	Again, as above, it is all based on the context and the resources within that particular project area.	N/A
Federal Agency	Historic context (this may be covered under 2nd one above but it is extremely important)	x	x	x	x	x	None	x		x		Issues arise when a transportation project will impact a utility that lies outside the road ROW and the utility must move. The utility often relocates adjacent to the road ROW but sometimes the utility takes the opportunity to relocate to a different location and this often that decision is made well after the Section 106 process is completed. These can be challenging effects to predict and document since the agency has no control or say over what the utility company chooses to do.	Not for types of projects but rather types of resources. Changes in the way SHPO staff view certain types of properties has introduced risk into projects with post-War residential resources and 20th C farmsteads with the APE.	No	NA
State DOT		x	x	x	x		None	x		x		Obtaining sufficient information to perform such reviews; integrating the concerns of consulting parties	Same as 3-2b	Yes	Every project is unique and challenging in its own way. Some broad project categories that can be more challenging are: projects involving archaeological resources, major infrastructure projects, locally-administered and/or consultant-designed projects, projects occurring in the City of New York

Page 98

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

Have you experienced challenges in making or reviewing no effect and no adverse effect findings for certain property types?
- □ Yes
- □ No
If yes, please indicate the type of resource(s) that presented the challenges identified above (select all that apply):
- □ Historic bridges
- □ Archaeological sites
- □ Linear historic properties
- □ Historic/Cultural properties
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________
Have you had experience with disagreements or disputes on no effect and no adverse effect findings?
- □ Yes
- □ No
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________
If “Yes” what was the substantive nature of any disagreement? ______________________
Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to TCPs?
- □ Yes
- □ No
- □ Maybe
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________
Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to archaeological sites when consulting with tribes?
- □ Yes
- □ No
- □ Maybe
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________
Do you have experience in making or reviewing the application and interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in the context of findings of no adverse effect (such as for findings of no adverse effect with conditions)?
- □ Yes
- □ No
- □ Maybe
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________

SEE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ABOVE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES

Page 99

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Yes	No	Historic bridges	Archaeological sites	Linear historic properties	Historic/Cultural properties	Yes	3-5a. If “Yes” what was the substantive nature of any disagreement?	Yes	No	Maybe	Yes	No	3-7. Do you have experience in making or reviewing the application and interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in the context of findings of no adverse effect (such as for findings of no adverse effect with conditions)?	Yes	No
State DOT	x				x		x	not taking into account visual impacts		x		x				x
State DOT	x				x	x	x	most cases have revolved around a roadway widening where traffic is moving closer to a residential property and requiring ROW from that property.		x			x		x
State DOT	x				x	x	x	We recently had a disagreement with a consulting party who owns a listed property in our APE. There are no direct effects but he felt that changes to the highway and in speed limit were affecting the integrity of setting, feeling, and association of the property. SHPO concurred with us, and even though we felt we had implemented traffic calming measures that would address the consulting party’s concerns, we were still unable to come to agreement. In another example, we had looked at a 5 mile segment of a historic railroad and determined that although the entire railroad was significant this segment as a whole lacked integrity and was non=supporting so we made a no adverse effect determination. The consulting party disagreed that the segment lacked integrity because there were some smaller areas where there were remnants of old retaining walls. In this example, the party couldn’t agree with our effect determination because they disagreed with our eligibility finding.		x			x		x
State DOT		x					x	Linear sites (irrigation features & roadways) have been issues.	x			x		Yes	x
State SHPO	x					x	x	SHPO did not agree that a no adverse effect for installation of a noise wall immediately adjacent to a NHL property, we consulted with FHWA and ACHP and agreed to disagree		x			x	Yes	x
State SHPO	x				x		x	Where the line should be drawn between no effect and no adverse effect. Impacting is impacting, so that would fall under no adverse effect, while no effect is no impact.			x		x		x
State DOT	x		x	x		x	x	As above: noise barrier constituting adverse effect; disagreement regarding cumulative effects		x			x		x

Page 100

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Yes	No	Historic bridges	Archaeological sites	Linear historic properties	Historic/Cultural properties	Yes	No	3-5a. If “Yes” what was the substantive nature of any disagreement?	3-6. Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to TCPs?	Yes	No	Maybe	3-6a. Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to archaeological sites when consulting with tribes?	Yes	No	Maybe	Yes	Maybe
State SHPO	x		x	x		x	x		Visual impacts to a historic district			x				x		x
State DOT	x				x	x	x		Most of the time, the disagreements have been more related to the public or the consulting party’s overall opposition to the project, and not a specific issue regarding how eligibility or effects to a specific property were determined. A few times, the public or the consulting party believed work would adversely affect a particular property when my agency had determined it would not. SHPO has almost always agreed with my agency’s determinations of effect but have sometimes viewed things as adverse which my agency did not; sometimes this is a result of inadequate information being provided to SHPO, and other times due to the SHPO reviewer’s belief that any change to a property is adverse.				x				x	x
State SHPO	x		x		x		x		The amount to which flood damage or other damage diminishes integrity of historic bridges.				x				x		x
State SHPO	x		x	x	x	x	x		Eligibility and integrity and cumulative impacts		x				x			x
State DOT	x		x					x				x				x		x
State DOT	x			x	x	x	x		SHPO wanted more information to back up the finding, however DOT/FHWA felt enough was provided.	No known/identified TCPs in state that have been encountered on projects.		x				x		x
State SHPO	x				x		x		Eligibility		x				x			x
State SHPO	x		x	x	x	x	x		what constitutes an adverse effect to a property			x				x		x
State DOT		x			x		x		Typically it boiled down to design details and if the property retained sufficient integrity of material			x				x		x
State DOT	x		x		x		x		Sometimes non-agreement on the eligibility of a resource and bringing in the Keeper of the NR. The moving onto effect from that decision is or can be a sore spot.	Not many in my service area		x		Somewhat, though I defer to the staff archaeologist(s) to engage. If it’s obviously not a precontact site then I’m much more moving forward on my own.			x	x

Page 101

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Yes	No	3-4a. If yes, please indicate the type of resource(s) that presented the challenges identified above (select all that apply):	Historic bridges	Archaeological sites	Linear historic properties	Historic/Cultural properties	Other	Yes	No	3-5a. If “Yes” what was the substantive nature of any disagreement?	3-6. Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to TCPs?	Yes	No	Maybe	3-6a. Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to archaeological sites when consulting with tribes?	Yes	No	3-7. Do you have experience in making or reviewing the application and interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in the context of findings of no adverse effect (such as for findings of no adverse effect with conditions)?	Yes	No
State SHPO		x							x		When determining NRHP eligibility and adverse effects, splitting a single archaeological site and calling one area potentially eligible and to avoid, and the other half as No Historic Properties Affected	What is a TCP?		x				x		x
State SHPO	x					x		Historic landscapes	x		It can vary. Could be whether strip takings will have an impact, whether we can minimize to a NAE, whether the resource retains integrity, whether auxiliary sites are contributing (as it relates to effects), eligibility of the site in question, applicability of NR bulletins, etc.	Trail of Tears	x			Archaeologists at SHPO do	x			x
State SHPO		x							x		Applicant arguing No Effect to avoid 4(f) while we argue No Adverse Effect		x					x		x
State SHPO	x			x		x			x		Project involved rehab/reinforcement of an NRHP-eligible bridge that previously had stabilization measures installed such as installation of wing walls. Disagreement largely surrounded how the reinforcement would take place and how it would impact the shape of openings between bridge piers.			x				x		x
State SHPO	x			x		x				x				x		FHWA prefers that they be the only point of contact with the THPO in our region		x		x
State SHPO	x			x	x	x	x	Historic districts	x		Conflating a bridges condition with its integrity		x				x				x
State SHPO	x			x		x			x		These disputes normally resolve themselves but as stated above many should be a NAE and ITD/FHWA says NHPA.				x			x	Technically we cannot have NAE with conditions -- at least that is what the ACHP training states.		x
State DOT	x		Canals (linear)			x			x		Only once, we disagreed with SHPO and elevated to ACHP. ACHP ruled in our favor.	our archaeologist is working on this.	x				x			x
State SHPO	x			x		x			x						x	Our staff archaeologist would need to answer this.				x

Page 102

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Yes	No	3-4a. If yes, please indicate the type of resource(s) that presented the challenges identified above (select all that apply):	Historic bridges	Archaeological sites	Linear historic properties	Historic/Cultural properties	Other	Yes	3-5a. If “Yes” what was the substantive nature of any disagreement?	3-6. Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to TCPs?	Yes	No	3-6a. Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to archaeological sites when consulting with tribes?	Yes	No	3-7. Do you have experience in making or reviewing the application and interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in the context of findings of no adverse effect (such as for findings of no adverse effect with conditions)?	Yes	No
State SHPO	x			x		x			x	Sometimes related to addressing the full range of adverse effect criteria to determine if one or more is applicable, and to thoroughly rule out an adverse effect finding.	Not personally, others on staff may.	x		Not personally, others on staff have.	x		We no longer use no adverse effect with conditions findings. Instead these types of evaluations would likely result in an adverse effect finding, recognizing minimization efforts which sometimes can contribute to mitigation.		x
State SHPO	x			x		x			x	Explaining to CPs (non-Federal agency and non-SHPO) the National Register criteria, especially criteria considerations.			x			x		x
Federal Agency	x			x	x		x		x	Impacts to cultural resources			x		x		Some experience	x
State DOT	x		Linear historic properties, Historic Districts most commonly...but linear too, since opinions vary as to what is really an adverse effect to a linear district.			x		Historic districts	x	Whether the impact rose to the level of adverse.			x			x		x
State DOT	x		I would say the challenge lies more within no adverse vs. adverse rather than no effect vs. no adverse. No effect is usually pretty straight forward.	x	x	x	x		x	Generally if SHPO or a consulting party thinks our no adverse call should be adverse. This is quite rare though.		x			x			x
State DOT		x							x	Lack of leadership from SHPO has made it difficult to find concurrence on NR eligibility.		x			x			x

Page 103

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Yes	No	Historic bridges	Archaeological sites	Linear historic properties	Historic/Cultural properties	3-5. Have you had experience with disagreements or disputes on no effect and no adverse effect findings?	Yes	No	3-5a. If “Yes” what was the substantive nature of any disagreement?	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
State DOT	x		x	x	x			x		For archaeological sites the disagreement is often if the area impacted contributes to the eligibility of the site as a whole or has the potential to impact unknown subsurface deposits. We may also argue that we are avoiding a linear site such as a canal or underlaying road if the depth of the current project has no potential to intersect with those features; thinking of the APE in three dimensions. For historic bridges we often need to research the history of changes on a bridge to demonstrate if an element is historic.		x	x			x
State DOT	x					x		x		Elements of historic properties that SHPO was concerned about.		x		x	x
Local Government	x		x	x			do not always agree with SHPO findings, but have not taken further	x		viewshed impact disagreement		x		x	x
State DOT		x						x		Twice when it has gone to the Council (not disagreements between us and SHPO, but a consulting party or other agency has disagreed). Once had to do with effects of noise and soundwalls on historic properties adjacent to interstate highway improvements--the City argued that the noise would have an adverse effect on CDFs. We disagreed and Council agreed with us. Other time had to do with visual effects on landscape, we argued the construction was not affecting any of the significant views identified for the landscape, the other agency disagreed. Council agreed with our analysis.		x		x	x
local government that receives FHWA funding	x		x			x			x		x		x		x

Page 104

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Yes	No	Historic bridges	Linear historic properties	Historic/Cultural properties	3-5. Have you had experience with disagreements or disputes on no effect and no adverse effect findings?	Yes	No	3-5a. If “Yes” what was the substantive nature of any disagreement?	Yes	No	Maybe	Yes	No	Maybe	3-7. Do you have experience in making or reviewing the application and interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in the context of findings of no adverse effect (such as for findings of no adverse effect with conditions)?	Yes
State DOT	x		x			Once we had established programmatic agreements on No effect and NAE calls, the number of disagreements diminished rapidly.	x				x				x	especially with regard to geotextile and fill.	x
State SHPO	x		x	x	x		x		The use of outdated or incomplete documentation to assess affects. Disassociating the findings of effect from previous, unrelated undertakings from current consultations. The consideration of effects from previous and similar undertakings in current assessment of cumulative effects. The consideration of local preservation ordinances when planning new signs, signals, and lights into a historic district that were not indicated in 30% or 60% plans.			x			x		x
State DOT	x			x	x		x		Being accused of “letter of the law” correctness but not adhering to the spirit.		x		x				x
State DOT		x						x			x		x				x
State DOT	x		x	x	x		x		Most often, the disagreement is over the interpretation of 36 CFR 800.5(2)(i) - is the destruction of a small portion of a large resource, even if it’s land that contributes to the use/feeling and association, an adverse effect?		x		x				x
State DOT	x				x		x		The level of the effect.		x			x			x
State DOT	x		x		x		x		We determined no adverse effect for a historic property (residence) due to no significant noise increase, and the SHPO and property owner disagreed, and that needed ACHP resolution. We’ve also had projects where we determined no adverse effect on historic properties because our undertaking did not substantially change a viewshed or because we determined a property was not a contributing element to a district or larger property.	x			x				x

Page 105

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Yes	No	3-4a. If yes, please indicate the type of resource(s) that presented the challenges identified above (select all that apply):	Historic bridges	Archaeological sites	Linear historic properties	Historic/Cultural properties	Other	Yes	No	3-5a. If “Yes” what was the substantive nature of any disagreement?	3-6. Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to TCPs?	Yes	No	Maybe	3-6a. Do you have experience in applying no effect and no adverse effect findings to archaeological sites when consulting with tribes?	Yes	No	Maybe	Yes	Maybe
Federal Agency	x				x	x			x		eligibility of resources and CDFs		x				x			x
State DOT	x			x			x	Historic landscapes	x		How much is too much “in-kind” replacement for historic bridges; whether or not the traffic noise findings are accurate for Section 106 effects findings			x		It seems like we typically have no effect or full adverse effects when it comes to archaeological sites.		x		x
Federal Agency	x			x	x	x	x		x		disagreement between the federal agency and SHPO that had to go to ACHP for comment before FHWA made a decision.		x				x			x
State SHPO	x			x	x	x	x		x		Considering one example of a type to be historic, rather than including all eligible resources is problematic.				x				x	x
State SHPO	x			x	x	x	x		x		we had to work out what the appropriate assessment of effect was.			x		lead federal agency usually addresses these concerns government to government.		x		x
State DOT	x			x		x			x		The primary challenge is the SHPO’s assertion that all projects, regardless of scope, will have some type of effect on a historic property. Pavement markings in historic districts or milling and paving activities are two such examples of activities.			x			x			x
State SHPO	x				x	x	x		x		No effects that require conditions that really should be adverse effect mitigation		x				x				x
State SHPO	x		Rural	x	x				x		setting. Most disagreements are about the importance of setting to a historic property.			x			x			x
State DOT	x			x	x					x					x		x			x
State SHPO		x							x		defining the APE and what constitutes an adverse effect for indirect effects.	only as case studies as a student		x		my coworkers handle archaeology and tribal consultation	x			x
State SHPO		x								x				x				x		x

Page 106

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Yes	No	3-4a. If yes, please indicate the type of resource(s) that presented the challenges identified above (select all that apply):	Historic bridges	Linear historic properties	Historic/Cultural properties	Other	Yes	No	3-5a. If “Yes” what was the substantive nature of any disagreement?	No	Yes	No	Yes
State DOT	x			x		x		x		Sometimes it is simply how we have defined the APE of the project. We base our APE on the scope of the project and the context. If it doesn’t make sense for the APE to extend into neighboring parcels, we will draw it closer to the physical project limits. At times that has caused disagreement because we have not evaluated every building on a street (because we knew based on the scope of the work that we would not impact it even if there were an eligible property there). Other disagreements are the typical disagreements about eligibility that every agency has with their SHPO.	x	x		x
State DOT		x						x		It is rare, but there have been some disagreements with SHPO staff, one example that comes to mind was a visual impact of some guardrail. After additional information on the changes to the setting of the property in question, and the lack of a significant viewshed (when there was one historically), we were able to come to an agreement on a no adverse effect finding.	x		x	x
Federal Agency	x					x			x	No disputes over the effect findings but several over the NR eligibility of certain property types.	x	x		x
State DOT	x		Historic districts, unevaluated Parkways, NHLs,		x	x	historic districts, NHLs	x		Disagreements over replacement vs. rehabilitation and/or aesthetic details	x	x		x

Page 107

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs? _________________________
What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g., state, and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect? _______________________________________________________________
What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g., state, and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect? _______________________________________________________________
What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public? __________________________________________
What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public? __________________________________________
In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process? _________________
Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects? _________________________________

SEE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ABOVE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES

Page 108

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State DOT	(1) most do not assess a project area the same way we would and require providing survey resources and additional knowledge to understand the inclusions of certain properties to survey and (2) most consultants have an understanding of the findings and have been mostly right; we have not received that many questions from other groups on the findings	can’t think of any	can’t think of any	can’t think of any	can’t think of any	repetitive (continuous) contact and open communication	yes
State DOT	It varies widely, but recently there has been alot of turnover in the profession and we are having increasing issues with quality of work products from consultants. There doesn’t seem to be many people well trained in Section 106 and understanding the basics, and less today than 5 years ago.	CPs can be helpful in prioritizing what is most important for them in terms of minimizing adverse effects or in terms of mitigation results.	neighborhood organizations who use the Section 106 process to kill a project they dislike and are perhaps not 100% sincere regarding their comments as they pertain to historic properties	Using the NEPA public involvement process to include “information boards” on historic property findings. Block by block on site meetings with property owners. Sharing Section 106 correspondence with CPs. Websites on projects that include information on environmental impacts, including historic resources.	hard to communicate Section 106 process sometimes - not that easy to convey the process to the public	Sending consultation letters with plans, diagrams, survey forms and all relevant information to consulting/interested parties at the same time as the SHPO and giving them 30 days to reply. If the consulting party is a local entity, and they need more time to coordinate with the schedule of a local preservation commission, then grant them an extension. Also, always good to be available and accessible - to talk on the phone, to email a response, to attend a meeting, to provide more information.	Yes
State DOT	In general, there is a lack of historian/architectural historians in our state so we often get evaluations of built environment resources by archaeologists, which can be problematic. Of the historians consultants that are available, quality varies but there are issues with both identification and effects. I would say most of our consultants need work on how to evaluate effects properly.	On our larger EA or EIS projects, we tend to have more success because we’re setting up meetings to discuss APE and the survey report and there is a lot of communication up front about the project and what to expect during the Section 106 process. We’ve had success on the projects that are part of our I-70 Mountain Corridor because there is a consistent approach to the environmental process that involves a series of meetings with different technical groups, including Section 106. For smaller CatEx projects, we don’t always have the time to provide that context, so we’re sending materials within an often tight timeframe. That’s why we developed the guidance content on our web site so that CPs can understand the ASK.	We don’t get a lot of consulting party feedback but when we do, it is typically because they don’t agree with either how we have identified the property or with effects. There’s a disconnect in general because Section 106 is pretty academic and I don’t think CPs always understand what we’re asking for and then they don’t understand how we evaluate resources. We have developed a section on our web site for CPs so they understand what we’re asking for and how they can participate and we include the link to this information in all our letters to CPs.	We don’t have a separate public process for CatEx--our outreach to CPs constitutes our public review unless the project is an EA or EIS and then the NEPA public participation is where there is public outreach about historic properties.	See 3-10a	We have developed relationships with CPs on our broader corridor projects-that typically result in EA or EIS. It’s harder to maintain consistency on smaller CatEx projects where we may only contact those parties once every so many years if even that. I think providing the link to our web site content is a best practice for those parties that we intermittently contect.	Yes, but I don’t have time to discuss them here in this tiny font!
State DOT	The Agency Office makes the actual finding. Consultants actually just recommend findings. I feel that consultants do not apply the criteria appropriately in a lot of cases. Have to work with consultants a lot. We never tell a consultant to change a finding, but to better explain and that often results in a change in their findings.	Nothing specific.	Their lack of understanding about the process. They don’t contribute anything of value because they don’t understand the process.	None	None	Having meetings face-to-face. Meeting CPs at their place of business. Encouraging them to talk to the outreach historian at the Idaho State Historical Society who is great at explaining their roles.	None

Page 109

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State SHPO	our state DOT does quality control on all materials produced by private-sector parties on behalf of DOT and handles the coordination of the submittal with the SHPO directly	CPs play a key role in consultation on many projects - providing valuable input in the id and evaluation of resources, and finding solutions to avoid adverse effects	sometimes CPs don’t really understand the Section 106 process, their role in consultation, and the focus on historic properties as opposed to environmental resources	through state DOT website, annual reporting under statewide PA, and SHPO online search of Compliance database records	when the CPs don’t understand or agree with the findings	open communication and transparency in the process	I-695 TSMO project and assessment of effects on NPS Hampton Mansion viewshed
State SHPO	Community groups and other entities do not do ID of historic property or assessments of effect, it is often left to the SHPO to do it. A lot of private-sector consultants send archaeologists to do a historian’s job, which is usually clear in the reports provided. When done correctly, with the correct SOI-qualified people, it is usually done well.	As SHPO, we don’t consult with them, that is the federal agency or their delegates responsibility.	When we have been involved in such meetings, it is always clear that they local entities have no idea what Section 106 is and what their role should and could be within it.	Again, not SHPO’s role.	n/a	For SHPO/DOT relationships - meeting often and having open discussions about bigger picture items helps - get ahead of the issues.	none come to mind - we see so many...
State DOT	These entities should not be making determinations/findings. Consultants and others should only be making recommendations to agencies like federal agencies or state DOTs with delegated authority to make findings. In general, the state/federal findings are more defensible than the recommendations, although disagreements are infrequent.	No specific examples	Often the disagreements are not based in the regulations or attentive application of the criteria of adverse effect, but rather the consultation gets clouded by side issues, or opinions that are not grounded in the process.	Usually if there is a disagreement, the public and CPs rarely become “convinced” that there actually is no adverse effect or no effect.	Poor understanding of the regulatory requirements and CPs using the 106 process in general to object to a project for other reasons than a specific historic adverse effect.	Early consultation and clear documentations.	Yes
State SHPO	Some are really good. DOT often doesn’t like if we disagree with private consultants eligibility rating and impacts. The readability of the documents is sometimes awkward, though we do not “edit” documents.	It takes a while, though generally through discussion the outcome is good for all.	Hard to say, we are usually on same page with them	PI meetings, Public Hearings, Letters to the public	Complete contact information being provided by DOT or their consultant	Communication and understanding of what each party has vested in the project.	Prefer not to

Page 110

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State DOT	I would say that other groups are so-so in their ability to identify historic properties. Sometimes local groups believe things are historic when they really do not meet the NRHP thresholds for eligibility, either due to lack of significance or lack of integrity. Even professionals, like consultants, struggle with identification of historic properties, usually because they lack an understanding of what is truly significant within a given locality, they haven’t utilized or developed a historic context for the area, or they do not have sufficient experience in comparative analysis of properties. They, and local groups, often allow personal biases about what seems worthy of being historic to dictate how they identify properties. I have found that documentation of effects findings is challenging even for seasoned practitioners. Many consultants I work with are relatively new to the field and do not have the experience to adequately assess effects; I find this is the most serious area of training needed for consultants. Assessing effects is even harder for local groups, academics, and other non-practitioners because they usually don’t understand what qualifies a property as historic and eligible in the first place. Much of the language and methodology of identification and assessment of properties is very complex and not easy for non-practitioners to grasp.	I have not yet had a project where I consulted with a national or statewide preservation organization (aside from the Advisory Council on Preservation). My experiences with local preservation organizations (including CLGs) has been mixed. I have worked with a few where the staff understood the Section 106 process better than most and were able to provide appropriate and meaningful feedback and comments, including providing additional information on local surveys, providing background information on historic properties and their importance to the community, and expressing concern over how local landmarks might be affected by the work.	I have not yet had a project where I consulted with a national or statewide preservation organization (aside from the Advisory Council on Preservation). My experiences with local preservation organizations (including CLGs) has been mixed. Most do not have any knowledge or understanding of the Section 106 process and how it works. Most of the time, I do not receive any responses from CPs, likely because they are unsure how to respond (even though we provide guidance and help point them in the right direction) or they don’t consider responding to be a priority to their organization. If a CLG responds, it is often a unilateral response from the staff liaison, who may have never actually brought the project to the attention of the board or commission, thus circumventing part of the public involvement component of the consultation process. Another challenge is local organizations using the Section 106 process to complain about a wide variety of other project concerns, or opposition to the project in general, that should be more properly addressed through other aspects of the NEPA public involvement process.	Relatively few. The whole Section 106 process, including the assessment of effects, is extremely complex and jargon-heavy, making it difficult to explain to the public in a way that makes sense.	The whole Section 106 process, including the assessment of effects, is extremely complex and jargon-heavy, making it difficult to explain to the public in a way that makes sense. Even just trying to explain what qualifies as a historic property is challenging. Historic properties aren’t just old or cool looking. If we can’t clearly explain how “historic” is defined, how on earth are we going to explain what an “adverse effect” is? I’ve definitely tried explaining it, and sometimes I think some of it sinks in, but Section 106 is hard enough for seasoned practitioners do understand well.	Be transparent and avoid an attitude that you are the expert or know more than they do. Especially if you have a feeling that a project could be contentious or have the potential to result in an adverse effect, identify the CPs early and involve them often, even in the scoping and design phases, to reduce problems later and to give them a stake in how the final design plays out. Explain the Section 106 process as clearly as you can, and make it clear at the beginning what the process can and cannot do. Set reasonable expectations and boundaries, look for the win-win, and keep conversations focused and positive.	Probably.
State SHPO	In general, the identification efforts are thorough, but often the evaluations of eligibility are not well-researched, or are biased toward “not eligible” to facilitate the project being carried out. Often, the effect findings are biased toward certain types of properties and activities, or a basic format is followed that doesn’t account for the specific context of each project.	They often provide greater context for the establishment of the significance of a resource.	Sometimes having too many parties involved leads to a difficulty to find resolution.	N/A	N/A	Specifically address any comments received, rather than just filing them and proceeding on without taking them into consideration. Involve CPs in the process early on before decisions are made.	N/A

Page 111

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State SHPO	The quality needs to improve and archaeologists should not be evaluating historic buildings. It takes too much time because they often do not have the background and education to do a proper analysis. We don’t expect architectural historians to be archaeologists. Also, consultants need more training on recognizing natural features that are considered cultural places by tribes.	We work closely with our partners.	None.	The concept of no adverse effect can be misunderstood by the public.	Understanding the qualities of a property that make it significant instead of assuming any impact is an adverse effect.	Constant communication and transportation officials not pressured to just move projects through quickly. Taking the time for the proper analysis and decisions based on data, actually makes the project go faster. Agencies arguing slows things down.	None at the moment
State DOT	Little to no change over the years, documentation appears to be becoming less available	Different viewpoints which provide a wider perspective.	Contrast among other DOTS as a hierarchy	Utilization of PA Project PATH	Having the public read and comprehend the documents in their entirety.	Building and maintaining the trust between the parties.	No
State DOT	Ability and quality vary by consultant. However, for the most part, DOT and SHPO work closely with consultants to ensure appropriate material is provided.	Typically the preservation minded organizations that are involved here are looking out for the best interests of their town, and they add great background information for the project. They tend to be happy when you aren’t impacting their resources	none in recent years	We hold monthly virtual meetings with SHPO and federal agencies in which projects are reviewed. The town and any CPs tend to like the “face time” they get with these meetings.	Wider distribution to potentially interested parties.	We hold monthly virtual meetings with SHPO and federal agencies in which projects are reviews and CPs are invited. People seem to appreciate the “face time” these meetings allow.	Best example I have of this is Ossipee 41251, roadway widening and intersection improvement adjacent to a historic farmstead. Cumulative impacts included additional impacts to a stonewall. If not for the consulting party we would not have known about unmarked graves near the project area - but thankfully well outside of any impacts areas. This particular consulting party was very vocal during the planning, which made designers approach the historic resource is slightly different ways, for the better.
State SHPO	My office and myself have extensive experience with this and it has been highly variable.	The most successful collaborations are with organizations that are very familiar with the property, to assist us in understanding what makes it significant and thus, how to avoid effects	That being old does not equate to significance and the retenetion of historic fabrics is more important than recreations. There is no making something “more historic.”	We tend to leave that up to the agency, particularly in understanding the project. My office tries to communicate and understanding of significance and CDFs.	Similar to 3-9b and dealing with consulting parties	Being transparent, using plain language, and communicating for different learning styles.	not at this time
State SHPO	ability and quality varies widely	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	frequent communication through multiple channels (calls, meetings, emails, messaging)	No
State DOT	Our consultants primarily identify historic properties and do not assess effects for us.	Typically our consultant parties are mute.	no challenges	NA	NA	clear and consistent communication	no
State DOT	With few exceptions findings provided by other groups trend towards thin or weak arguments for eligibility. As an agency we do not request effect determinations in the body of reports preferring to add our judgement in our coordination letter with the SHPO and others.	Somewhat of a good track record. Although can be quite involved in getting to yes with NTHP and NPS.	The above groups can be difficult in negotiations. They sometimes seem to not want to see our perspective.	Fairly straightforward. Website postings in a monthly list concurred on by SHPO is one way that public is informed.	Finding appropriate communication methods is hard at times. I may rely too heavily on one format and not realize or utilize another platform or means.	Communicate clearly and often.	Yes.
State SHPO	Most Consultants provide clear and adequate survey reports. Some are new and require a bit more guidance in preparing proper Archaeological reports. Luckily, they are usually very willing to learn and correct.	Finding ways to proceed with incomplete survey work due to denial of land access.	None as of yet	None yet	None yet	Treating each other as humans through respective and perpetual communication	No

Page 112

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State SHPO	Our DOT has contracts with the best/most well-rounded firms, so generally they’re pretty good on their documentation because they have a lot of experience working with our office. Once it gets down to the smaller firms that don’t work with us as much (generally non-transportation), things start to get iffy as to what is missing.	Transportation generally is good when knowing which larger entities need to be consulted (i.e., Olmsted Conservancy, NPS NHL team, River Fields - local env. non-profit, etc.). They do sometimes forget to provide historic preservation officers the opportunity to comment though.	Consultant/transportation not leading the discussion effectively. Consultant/transportation not being prepared with all the project info. CPs not knowing the 106 process - learning curve. CPs having different viewpoints as to mitigation, whether there is an effect, minimization measures, etc.	We have a PR position that is pretty good at sharing 106 success stories, along with all the other info our office puts out to the public.	Sometimes folks will be really adamant its not an NAE, but an AE. A lot of times folks either don’t understand 106, aren’t thinking about historic properties, or missed their CP comment opportunity, so it can get difficult when that occurs.	Having clear guidance about the 106 process. Having well-prepared CPs meeting. Distributing information to them in layman’s terms. Ensuring CPs are given the opportunity to comment. Being flexible with CP wishes, as applicable within the project constraints.	We had a recent transportation project, about four years long, for a US-421 widening project. Was super narrow (no shoulders whatsoever), that went through an eligible historic district (HD). Widening would have necessitated the demo of multiple houses, all of which were early-mid-late 19th century crossroads community resources. Through a lot of alts and project changes, we were able to avoid an AE. Newtown, KY
State SHPO	ultimately depends on the consultant as well as the agency representative overseeing the preparation of documentation - and the agency’s willingness to say it’s inadequate (vs. passing this responsibility on to the SHPO or other CPs)	None come immediately to mind as our PA allows for streamlining of these consultation efforts so we are not always involved or privy to the information provided.	N/A	N/A	Lack of public understanding of what these findings entail as well as auto-generated findings without instructions on how to navigate in order to determine such findings.	transparency and open communication - providing full scope/scale of project and justified (and clearly substantiated and written) justification findings that are digestible and understandable to ALL parties ivnolved.	N/A
State SHPO	Varies from company to company	The only thing along these lines that I can think of is that the state DOT puts out notification letters for new projects that note any previously identified resources in the APE (or lack thereof). CPs will sometimes respond to the notifications to confirm that they are not aware of additional historic properties in the APE.	None that I am aware of	Since I work for a SHPO, I generally review NHPA and NAE findings rather than document them, but we do communicate them to the public in as much as we provide response letters to project applicants and CPs.	None	Upfront communication from agency or their consultant	None that would be particularly insightful
State SHPO	Most of our ID’s have been done previously however if things do crop-up on a case-by case basis usually a consultant will identify them, we have a couple very established consulting firms that we work with frequently and we are happy with their documentation and effect findings. We run into more editing when consultants are used that do not have cultural resources divisions or sub-contractors for projects. Often times engineering firms who try and identify properties or provide any documentation struggle with these tasks.	We work with local groups who express interest in specific projects to be sure that their opinions are taken into consideration as is usual for Section 106	Many times the challenges can be getting the parties to comment or to speak with one another and come to an agreement on their stance, rather than having several people speaking “on behalf” of a certain group	Our office uses social media to highlight successful projects	Often in trasportation projects no effect projects and no adverse effect projects will result in nothing changing, which isn’t a very exciting thing to share with the public. It is almost a “No news is good news” situation	I am a staff member of a SHPO who’s position is funded by the FHWA and DOT I communicate almost exclusively with those agencies and we communicate frequently on almost all projects. I find that this frequent communication helps the process immensely. We also have a PA that streamlines most No Effect and No Adverse Effect projects.	No
State SHPO	Highly variable based on the consultant/academic/ext involved. Some do an excellent job and provide detailed information on 1 and 2 to DOT/FHWA, some provide inaccurate or incomplete information.	Local groups have been very vocal about trying to save historic bridges and pushing agencies to consider options other than demolition. While demolition of an eligible bridge is an Adverse Effect, these local groups are encouraging more use of those No Effect and No Adverse Effect options.	They don’t know they have a voice in the process.	na	na	Providing all parties access to all information (with archaeological confidentiality kept in mind). Factors like an agency’s budget for a project or desired outcome are important, in addition to the Historic properties identified.	na

Page 113

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State SHPO	Terrible. Most the consultants do not know what they are doing and their identification and evaluation of historic properties is copy and paste boiler plate without any real research to back their findings. Then if they do say something is eligible they blanketly say that it retains all aspects of integrity when it doesn’t. And a boundary for a property--don’t hold your breath. Most of the time they always say a project will have NAE to a historic property unless it is a bridge replacement project. They have no clue how to apply the finding of effect with any justification.	None. The FHWA/ITD does not consult with anyone (other than tribes) UNTIL they have a finding of ADVERSE EFFECT.	The outside groups have no understanding of Section 106 and the federal agencies do not really explain it to them.	None	The outside groups have no understanding of Section 106 and the federal agencies do not really explain it to them.	To start, they should talk to these groups before a finding of adverse effect. The FHWA/ITD does not consult with anyone (other than tribes) UNTIL they have a finding of ADVERSE EFFECT.	No
State DOT	they have been moderate to poor in their current work. seek most money with least work.	we have had success.	setting up meetings that they will need to attend.	none	none	Open communication.	no.
State SHPO	Quality of survey reports has lowered significantly in the last 3-5 years. We constantly send back for more information.	n/a	Sometimes they alert us to resources or information we were not aware of.	n/a	Sometimes members of the public do not understand significant vs. eligible or the very specific criteria followed in 106 and therefore may have concerns about a project that we do not share.	Making sure the federal agency does their due diligence and has included adequate information for SHPO to make a determination.	I’m sure we do. I cannot think of an example at the moment.
State SHPO	Identification efforts are required to be completed by 36CFR61 qualified architectural/archaeological consultants and are generally well done, however there is sometimes a disconnect between what “questions” are necessary to answer in a particular project/resource scenario and the content and/or level of effort in a form. Effect findings in our state are prepared by a much wider range of professionals, and we’ve been working hard to educate and standardize how effect findings are made and how to document them. It’s a slow process. Projects that lean towards no effect and no adverse effect finding from the beginning are much more likely not to have a cultural resources consultant on the team, therefore those projects more often rely on engineers, environmental consultants, applicants, or others.	Generally, state and national organizations tend to get involved in higher stakes projects - those that lean towards adverse effect.	See above.	Our state’s documentation of effect finding evaluations and findings have evolved over the last decade very positively, using new tools and improving the completion of old forms. This has helped agencies make better-informed decisions as well as provide added transparency to the process. Also, by being more methodical in evaluating effects, we have decreased default no adverse effect findings that are really more appropriately no effect findings. These were often made with good intentions; but would get hung up when DOT/team couldn’t articulate what the effect was when asked.	While there is significant progress in the quality and completeness of effect finding documentation, they often depend on the level of knowledge the preparer has about Section 106 in general. No effect and no adverse effect findings in particular seem to include less substantive justifications for findings. Nuances of argument are sometimes missing. In addition to other challenges this presents, transparency to the public suffers.	Communication; early involvement.	Not at this time.
State SHPO	DOT consultants are almost always among the most knowledgeable and skilled that we work with. We have a strong working relationship with many of them.	Working with local preservation organizations to aid in identifying CDFs of HDs, especially small-scale features such as streetscaping elements.	It is harder to get responses or concurrence from CPs as there is less of a threat to historic properties they might be interested in.	Have done trainings with our state DOT counterparts for local CPs to explain Section 106, how they can participate and have their voices heard, and what to expect from the DOT.	N/A	Proactive outreach and establishing relationships before a project starts.	No
Federal Agency	Some experience	None	None	None	None	Working together.	No

Page 114

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State DOT	Mixed. Totally depends on the author.	Likewise, they want to weigh in and while we appreciate it, it is often off-base since they aren’t grounded in the process.	They don’t agree with the call and often get lawyers involved.	They appreciate the input, in many cases.	They don’t like and understand what we are talking about.	Regular, open and honest communication.	Not exactly...
State DOT	It varies. Some are very qualified. Others require more assistance. Consultants do not make effect findings on ODOT projects.	Generally, these types of projects are not an issue.	Generally, these types of projects are not an issue.	The locals/project sponsors are learning that PI is a critical component to achieving SHPO concurrence and ensuring the project takes into consideration effects on historic properties...	The locals/project sponsors are learning that PI is a critical component to achieving SHPO concurrenceand ensuring the project takes into consideration effects on historic properties.	Include PI & efforts to identify CPs early in process.	Have to think about this one.
State DOT	Generally speaking we have very good, qualified consultants doing work for us. We have a consultant qualification training course and exam. At a minimum the project lead/reviewer has to have passed the exam and be posted on our online list of qualified consultants. We have separate archaeological and built/above ground modules and tests.	We endeavor to engage with CPs on every project. In particular, local governments when working within HDs or with locally significant properties.	Some CPs are unclear on the Section 106 process. This has led occasionally to CPs feeling the agency is being ‘sneaky’ or operating in a vacuum. We have endeavored to make our process more transparent.	Our agency has a robust public outreach program and our cultural staff are skilled at outreach and communication efforts.	Not all people are well skilled with email or other technological forms of communication. Multiple formats are needed to effectively reach and engage with the public.	Routine recurring meetings, with concise notes from previous meetings. Stating very clear process procedures, with timelines. Still working on more effectively describing and explaining the Section 106 process to the public.	Nothing concise.
State DOT	Personally have quite a bit of experience with them. Find their abilities to be highly variable.	Occasional successes. In most cases these organizations have their own agenda that do not necessarily concord with the criteria and principles of the NHPA.	Many do not respond to offers of consultation. Others do not really understand the Section 106 process.	Actually implementing it at an agency that historically did not practice such.	Agency management that does not always consider cultural resource compliance a priority.	Programmatic Agreements, although there are a lot of gaps and potential failings in these that I do not feel are being adequately addressed.	Yes.
State DOT	Mostly positive. I have worked with many of these types of people and usually experience a high degree of professionalism.	If we can avoid impacts, than it is almost universally experienced as a success.	Not a great deal. Typically our office advocates for these groups within the DOT. So by and large we have strong relationships with these groups.	Mainly through letters and email. Generally successful.	Finding contact information for group members.	Regularly scheduled communication. Building relationships over extended periods of time to establish trust.	Not sure.
State DOT	We have trained our common consultants to provide information that will support our effect determinations, providing additional research, mapping description of the features.	With local organizations, we have found that once extra explanation is provided about the nature of the effect and the regulatory framework there is agreement.	Mostly we are discussing/focusing on adverse effects with CPs, which in some ways is easier for them to understand. The nuances of No Adverse Effect and No Effect have taken longer to explain.	If we can show how we have avoided or minimized effects that is usually a more positive conversation than talking about the categories of effects.	In our experience the public sees any effect to a property as adverse and requires avoidance. Again, takes much longer to explain the nuances of the regulatory framework.	Demonstrate good faith efforts.	Likely
State DOT	Ability and quality varies.	They can help convince the DOT to modify a project to achieve “no adverse effect”	Their recommendations on how to treat historic properties can conflict with SHPO recommendations.	No experience.	No experience.	Listening to concerns and addressing them.	No
State DOT	approach is inconsistent between different consultant companies.	consultation on effects through sharing draft FOEs before finalizing and submitting to SHPO. Having meetings with stakeholders to go over project effects and build consensus.	miscommunications, scheduling/maintaining project schedules.	consensus building on high profile historic properties	getting feedback from stakeholders	transparency, thorough consultation	none
Local Government	Mostly good experiences but not always in agreement with others findings	a few instances of improved project details to reduce impacts.	Do not always agree with their findings. Unsure if it is their not being as familiar with our local sites or my being more of a stickler.	None. We don’t generally advertise our Section 106 outcomes unless directly asked.	None. We don’t generally advertise our Section 106 outcomes unless directly asked.	Starting a study/review or contact about one earlier in process with more room for modification and input to feel impactful.	Perhaps a case where a light pole antenna situation was modified after input for a site near the Georgia Theatre.
State DOT	Not in-depth enough	Very helpful	Long response time	Public meetings	Explaining the reason	Communicate early and often!	No

Page 115

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State DOT	Most of the consultants I work with do not understand how to do an effects assessment, they say “no adverse effect” and provide no justification for it. I end up having to rewrite them.	Generally good. When we’ve had issues, it has generally been a lack of understanding of the project or objection to the project overall.	They don’t listen.	Generally good success. The public has received most of our effects assessments without question.	None particularly, we start with education.	You have to start the Section 106 process by educating everyone. There are different levels of understanding, and many people think an effect is automatically adverse. Once you have provided some education about the process parties are generally receptive to an honest assessment of project effects, especially if they have a role in discussing what those effects are.	Yes.
State DOT	Consultants relying on outdated NR nominations and survey data for Vermont can be a challenge for consultants, especially out of state firms.	Consensus from these types of groups really helps with SHPO consultation and SHPO concurrence.	Unrealistic expectations - project design to mitigation options.	Unless there is specific interest, usually these groups are not interested. NAE projects are posted online for public inspection.	None	Public outreach is usually minimal for these project types.	No
local government that receives FHWA funding for projects	We have great archaeologists in WA state with good coordination with SHPO.	So far so good but we have an upcoming historic bridge project that may prove challenging.	None to date.	Have had good success with common bridge types and when we can demonstrate with good project site information that work will occur in previously disturbed areas with no integrity and that may have had previous cultural studies prepared.	Public typically does not get involved unless project is really big-communication is primarily between agencies and tribes.	continual communication with recurring meetings and having a staff archaeologist have helped to maintain relationships.	No
State DOT	PennDOT archaeologists make the findings of effect on behalf of FHWA (through a PA), not the consultants. Consultants often recommend a finding, but PennDOT reserves the authority to make the finding.	In setting up the statewide PA, consultation with preservation groups helped us refine and confirm our language.	Historic Bridge Rivets versus bolts.	PATH - https://path.penndot.gov.	Truly the lack of public interest in local projects until the bulldozers start.	PATH offers real-time findings, ahead of Categorical Exclusion (CE) findings. PATH offers reporting capabilities, by name, location, type of finding, etc. Transparency is critical. Training of CR Staff and Environmental Managers critical. Annual report and review with SHPO critical.	None
State DOT	Quality by private consultants has been good. Effects are a little harder for them. We don’t generally let community groups or others help with effects but they do help a lot with identification. Sometimes there are issues when a property is important to a community but does not meet NRHP criteria, this is happening more and more particularly with integrity of underrepresented community property.	Majority of the time successful. We rarely have SHPO or ACHP disagree with our findings.	Lack of response in timely manner. FINDING the appropriate folks to consult with. Would be nice to be able to use more social media but we are very limited in that as a DOT. DOT feels need to be very controlling on that platform.	I don’t think we really communicate this. We certainly do for adverse effects (since we have to do mitigation and we like to involve the public on that) but when we have No Adverse Effects or no effect, we don’t have time (?) to publish the fact that we avoided or minimized.	We don’t really do this. We don’t have time, we spend all our time on potential adverse effect situations.	Keeping communication lines open. Establishing relationships with ACHP or Historic Bridge Foundation before we have potential problems. However, we don’t consult with these folks if we don’t have an adverse effect. We may do an FYI email or something but we usually don’t hear back.	My colleagues may but I cannot think of any at the moment.
State SHPO	Consultants are not clear on how to: identify areas of potential effects; identify and document periods of signficance; identify patterns of historically significant urban infill; define boundaries for individually significant and contributing properties (including historically empty space) into district boundaries; and understanding how different elements of an undertaking’s design might affect the integrity of significant properties.	Working to identify reasonable and prudent alternatives to a proposed undertaking.	The preservation goals of local organizations may go far beyond the consultation authority and potential affects of a particular undertaking or related (phased) undertakings. In addition, individuals within communities have conflicting interests related to preservation issues. So, several challenges are: 1). communicating the limitations of the consultation process; 2.) explaining that without new documentation, assessments of effect may be limited to significant characteristics as defined in outdated NR nominations or	Communicating the limitations of the consultation process.	Communicating the limitations of the consultation process.	Being pragmatic about conusltations with little or no potential to affect historic properties or, which have no long-term implications for consultation processes.	Not without permission.

Page 116

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
			evaluations; 3). explaining that consultation is governed by process and not necessarily (often) conflicting desired outcomes.
State DOT	Most consultants are competent, but as you move from the more active practitioners of the federal regulations it decreases. Unless involving professional, the community groups are typically basing opinions on personal feelings and undocumented histories. They are also unfamiliar with the definition and application of effects.	If projects are not controversial, bringing them in early and making sure their concerns are heard they can become - if not advocates - at least more trusted parties to relay information.	Having the statewide and local groups begin consultation with a set negative position and being unwilling to consider other relevant and corrective information.	Much like 3-9a, developing a relationship with trusted individuals or groups who can then be effective communicators.	Getting beyond the negative opinion on a project that influences interpretations of effects.	Early and consistent involvement and open lines of communication.	No
State DOT	Mostly good.	Mostly positive experiences, though our local historical societies are typically non-participatory	Managing expectations. Again, some CPs struggle with understanding the roles and responsibility of a transportation agency relative to the Section 106 process; some folks would like us to deliver the Cadillac of projects on a no adverse effect determination in terms of the steps we take to avoid the adverse effect.	I’m not entirely sure how to answer this question. We’ve had several. In addition to hosting public meetings, we have used our website to communicate effectively when the consultation packages are quite large	managing hybrid meetings can be difficult as a presenter, to make sure that those attending digitally feel both seen and heard.	Open, honest and transparent communication; increasing the amount of communication as appropriate	In process, to be completed by end of 2023
State DOT	We often find identification of historic property documents to be reflective of the physical descriptions and statements of significance we learn to write in school. They include detailed and accurate descriptions of the buildings and generally detailed histories (heavily laden with unnecessary genealogy). But they are often lacking in the information we need to make a thorough effects assessment, such as contributing/non-contributing resources, descriptions of the landscape and site features, and an understanding of the NR criteria. There is very little understanding of how to successfully apply effects criteria.	Most of our national CPs are historic bridge advocates (e.g. Historic Bridge Foundation, National Society for the Preservation of Covered Bridges). They regularly participate in projects with bridges of interest to their organizational missions. Locally, involvement of county or municipal preservation organizations vary by region. In our more urban centers and surrounding suburbia, engagement is much easier to foster. However, there are smaller historical societies that regularly participate in their area’s projects. Our one statewide preservation organization rarely participates as CPs unless it is highly controversial or has the potential to set precedent. Generally, once local preservation organizations understand their CP role and the 106 process, they are engaged, useful, and pleased to be involved.	Engaging local preservation organizations is sometimes challenging. Their focus is not always on the types of resources involved in our projects, or they don’t have the staff/volunteers able to devote their time to the CP process. National preservation organizations sometimes lack the local perspective on needs and what communities value, which can lead to people talking past each other or bristling when there’s disagreement. Locals, including the project team members, often question the validity of a national organization’s perspective and their right to be at the table.	The Commonwealth has an online posting system that is very successful in sharing all our Section 106 documentation with the public. It allows us to increase our transparency, easily share documents with CPs and other interested parties, and helps engage groups and individuals. PennDOT also has a comprehensive PA with the SHPO that allows us to focus on documentation based on the potential for effects.	Our biggest challenge seems to be more about education rather than documentation/communication. The public is unfamiliar with Section 106, the role of CPs, and opportunities to be involved with transportation projects. It’s also difficult convincing people to make their participation a priority.	Engaging them early and often is key, as is showing them that their participation can positively impact project outcomes. Training the project managers and engineers how to engage the public without condescension and jargon, in a manner that builds trust, is also important.	PennDOT’s cultural resources website features success stories (with more being added as they are completed): https://www.penndot.pa.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Cultural%20Resources/Pages/default.aspx.
State DOT	Few of these groups know how to provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs.	We always communicate with SHPO about these findings. Local historical societies often don’t understand the aims / goals of the process, let alone the process itself, well enough to voice an opinion.	Getting responses from these various groups.	Often, the public doesn’t understand the process enough to understand the differences between these distinctions.	See above.	Always communicate and repeat information as many times as possible	No

Page 117

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State DOT	It has been mixed: some consultants and community groups are very knowledgeable about the Section 106 process and NPS guidelines, and some are not; some community groups in particular have a very flawed understanding of the process, expecting it to provide more protection or oversight by them.	We have had good success with both national and local preservation organizations, but interact more frequently at the local level.	We have had challenges with local historical societies not understanding the Section 106 process or their role in it, in terms of local societies wanting design control or the ability to change a project scope.	We’ve had pretty good success with communicating determinations to the public, through our project public outreach process of meetings and website information.	Getting the public interested.	Early and often open communication-it always comes down to being transparent and open with CPs, even if it’s to tell them things they don’t want to hear.	Yes.
Federal Agency	Disappointing. So many consultants are unfamiliar with the regulations.	having sufficient documentation often leads to success	they think everything is eligible and everything thing is adverse	Public House, Websites, stand alone meetings	project sponsors reluctant to engage public	transparency and communication	NO
State DOT	People tend to have the identification and direct effect findings down, it’s when we start looking at indirect effects, like visual, noise, access, vibration, etc. where people start to struggle	We do this on a daily basis successfully, so I’m not sure how to answer this.	Professional disagreements	We have a robust public outreach program that discusses our success stories through printed, digital, and video materials. However, we do not have a great way to consistently come back to the public/CPs to let them know that we accommodated their comments in our projects and actually made changes based on their comments. So we are working on a way to do that!	We do not have a great way to consistently come back to the public/CPs to let them know that we accommodated their comments in our projects and actually made changes based on their comments. So we are working on a way to do that!	I don’t understand the question.	Yes
Federal Agency	it varies across the board, there are good consultants and academics and ones that may not be or have an alternate agenda, etc.	robust and meaningful consultation can go a long way to lower litigation risk knowing the section 106 effect determination is not a consensus document or process and most times there will always be entities not happy with the outcome the federal agency decides.	that the section 106 process and effect determination is a consensus process and determination, but it is not.	piggybacking with NEPA public outreach efforts to engage stakeholders with decisions the lead federal agency is making.	not engaging all parties and the appearance that decisions are being made unilaterally.	robust, inclusive, consultation process, not just one meeting and check a box.	oh where do i begin... ADA ramps in Checotah Historic District, Oklahoma, Moore Mansion/Noise Wall, Washington, Bitter Creek Bridge, Oklahoma, English Center Bridge, Pennsylvania, Safe Routes to Schools, Jamestown, Rhode Island
State SHPO	We have had instances where our determination of adverse effect is not agreed upon by the applicant agency.	We find it extremely helpful.	CPs are often closest to the resources under review, which can be very helpful, but some organization staff/volunteers lack understanding of 106 which can derail the consultation process.	Our online project link has been helpful in releasing projects quickly.	Our response system is not publicly accessible, other than FOIA requests.	Frequent communication is key, plus providing clear and timely responses to the agencies and parties involved.	Not at this time
State SHPO	Quality varies.	The participation of local organizations is very helpful.	some national organizations have broader perspectives and interests.	we address our comments to the agencies and request that they engage the public.	we recommend to the agencies that they engage the public. It is their responsibility by 36 CFR 800 to do so.	keep talking. continue to interact. site visits together break down barriers of communication.	we recommend you contact our state highway agency and district FHWA. one example would be the consultation process for the Wheeling Suspension Bridge (an NHL), West Virginia
State DOT	Identification of historic properties: always eligible, with little to no justification or explanation as to why. Only VDOT makes effect determinations for projects, not outside parties.	Local preservation groups can provide essential information regarding a property’s history. Often, everything is significant or eligible, but it a group feels that a particular resource is identified and addressed, even if it is decided not to be eligible, things typically go smoothly.	None	Often these are projects that would have little to no public involvement.	None	I don’t really have any experience with public involvement with no effect or no adverse effect determinations.	No
State SHPO	Usually acceptable, but needing to follow our offices’ standards and guidelines	We generally agree	Few - mostly the larger organizations need additional information to understand the case	NCDOT Archaeology and Historic Architecture Groups are very good at this	Actually getting the public to understand Section 106 and how the findings work	Collegiality and the more experience the better	none

Page 118

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
State SHPO	Excellent. Consultants in Wisconsin have and routinely take advantage of our many training opportunities.	Plenty. In my experience, most concerns are adequately addressed. And for those few who are still unhappy about a project, their concerns are never about process. Even the most ardent bridge lovers feel their concerns were heard and every effort was made.	People care a lot about trees. They always want us to save their trees. Things end up well enough after explaining preservation of setting not individual trees, but it comes up all the time.	All of our documents are digital, so forwarding materials to anyone interested (minus anything sensitive) has been easy. Generally they just want to know we saw it, so these kinds of exchanges tend not to go any further than acknowledgement of review.	Only thing I can think of is those handful of individuals over the years who say they were never contacted. We show them the Public Information Notices, landowner letters, and any public notices and we don’t usually hear from them again. One person expressed concern right before a project went to construction and we worked with WisDOT for a last minute change. All worked out ok in the end.	Multiple methods of communication, social media presence both with projects and general FAQs (which helps with approachability), consistency of process even through staffing changes.	Maybe the I-94 East-West Corridor Study project in Milwaukee https://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/by-region/se/94stadiumint/default.aspx
State DOT	WYDOT uses mostly consultants to do the fieldwork for identifying historic properties and make prelim recommendations of no effect or no adverse effect. The consultants that I have on retainer have always been great and I trust their decisions.	Generally I send my recommendation to the state or local preservation organizations. Most of the time they concur, but if not, we move into conversations about the site and finding and can come to an agreement from there.	Generally, there are not challenges.	I don’t think I have done this before.	I don’t think I have done this before.	I don’t understand this question	No.
State SHPO	inconsistent - more training is needed for all parties	best success when the consultation is specific and meaningful (ie not just a notice or generic email)	sometimes they are not fully aware of the project until after the formal consultation has concluded which lead to challenging conversations if it turns out they had concerns	na	na	early and often communication and education about the review process and specific project plans	no
State SHPO	Ours almost entirely handled by another single state office so id and documentation is consistently adequate	None of note	None	None of note	None	See 3-8 and state office mentioned is a division in our organization	None I can think of
State DOT	It really varies. We have received superior work from some consultants and extremely poor work from others. We rarely see work from academics, scholars, or community groups except as third party consumers. We use their work for research on our projects. We have some community groups that do an outstanding job in their communities.	Usually when we have no effect and no adverse effect findings, there is little to no controversy and we don’t have a lot of interaction with CPs or other interested parties.	The only challenges we have had are when there is controversy over the project itself or over the finding. In that case, we do our best to work with the CPs and agencies to hear what they have to say and do additional work if warranted. We have done additional evaluations and even changed findings based on new information brought to our attention.	Again, when there is little controversy no one really pays much attention if we aren’t adversely impacting something. Occasionally, when we can avoid an eligible or listed property, and we can share that with the public, they are appreciative.	Again, usually the challenges come when there is controversy about the project or the effect finding. We have been challenged on effect calls on projects and subjected to email campaigns and had websites created with misinformation. We have resolved these issues by listening to what they have to say.	Have open, clear communication. Reach out early and be available. And above all, listen.	Not really.
State DOT	The identification has been very dependent upon the consultant, some are very good, others are lacking. It is rare to find a consultant that can provide a solid, defensible effect determination with adequate documentation. I have a bit of experience with academics, scholars, and community groups providing identification, and it seems to vary widely. I have no experience with academics, etc. providing effect determinations.	Often the local historical societies/commissions are very pleased to be part of the process, although they rarely have any background in the actual application of the law and making effect determinations.	At the local level, a lack of knowledge with federal laws and across the board little to no experience in making effect determinations.	Was just at a public meeting with large exhibit boards outlining both a Section 4(f) de minimis impact and the no adverse effect finding. I cannot state those boards were successful or unsuccessful--people read through them and looked at the carefully chosen pictures, a few ask questions, but no one had a specific concern or particular comment on any historic aspect of the project. It was similar to almost every other public outreach I have been a part of where historic resources are rarely anything of interest to community members. The residents are much more concerned with the detour route, what is happening with their driveway, when the project will be happening, etc. I	See above.	Being open, accessible, and providing good, solid, thorough information.	I do not have any good examples to share as case studies, sorry. The challenging situations, of which there are few, we work through, and none come to mind with any type of iterative process that would make for a helpful example.

Page 119

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	3-8. What has been your experience in the ability and quality of (1) identification of historic properties and (2) documentation on no effect and no adverse effect findings provided by private-sector consultants, academics and scholars, community groups, and other entities that provide this documentation to FHWA and state DOTs?	3-9a. What successes have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-9b. What challenges have you experienced in consulting with CPs such as national preservation organizations and state and local preservation organizations (e.g. state and local historical societies and commissions) in making findings of no effect and no adverse effect?	3-10a. What successes have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-10b. What challenges have you experienced in documenting and communicating no effect and no adverse effect findings to the public?	3-11. In your experience, what are some of the best approaches for establishing and maintaining positive relationships among the transportation agencies and CPs in the context of the no effect and no adverse effect determination process?	3-12. Do you have specific projects or case studies that you can share with us that exemplify successful and challenging determinations of no effect and no adverse effect, including those that address indirect and cumulative effects?
				think this typifies the vast majority of the day-to-day transportation projects, the public is generally not engaged with historic topics.
Federal Agency	The vast majority are well high quality documents with adequate supporting documentation.	Largely successes have resulted in development of project MOAs that outline continued communication and actions post completion of the 106 process.	Challenges largely center on historic bridges	Largely positive experiences associated with projects that result in preservation of resources	Have had a couple experiences where the public wants the resource to be removed rather than preserved and that is challenging	communication and inperson meetings	NA
State DOT	As it relates to private-sector consultants - HIGHLY VARIABLE trending towards fair/poor. We often need to ask many follow-up questions to gather the information we need. N/A for other specified groups.	Open discussion and compromise has successfully avoided adverse effect determinations for several projects and resulted in no adverse effect determinations	Competing priorities and opinions	The ability to wrap these findings into the NEPA EA/EIS process makes it easier to communicate these findings to the public with little objection.	It is often challenging to collect feedback or responses from the public for projects with no effect or no adverse effect findings (as compared to those projects with an adverse effect)	Early involvement, consideration of consulting party concerns, streamlining procedures	None at this time

Page 120

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

CONSIDERATION OF EFFECTS DURING PROJECT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Alternative Approaches to Project Delivery

Does your agency consider effects to historic properties during early project planning to avoid or minimize potential effects?
- □ Yes
- □ No
- □ Maybe
At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply):
- □ Long-range planning
- □ Ten-year horizon
- □ Five-year planning horizon
- □ Projects included in the STIP
- □ Effects not considered during early project planning
- □ Other: ________________________________________________________________
At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?
- □ Long-range planning
- □ Ten-year horizon
- □ Five-year planning horizon
- □ Projects included in the STIP
- □ Effects not considered during early project planning
- □ Other: ________________________________________________________________
Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts? ______________________________________________________________
How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts? ___________
Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?
- □ Yes
- □ No
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________
If “yes”, please describe the tool(s) ______________________________________________
What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public? _____________________________________________

Page 121

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?
- □ Project initiation
- □ NEPA scoping
- □ Section 106 Consultation
- □ Other: ____________________________________________________________
How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects? _________

SEE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ABOVE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES

Page 122

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Long-range planning	Ten-year planning horizon	Five-year planning horizon	Project included in the STIP	Effects not considered during early project planning	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State DOT	We do get certain planning projects sent to us for review prior to being in the STIP.				x			x	not provided all projects for consideration	sent the STIP	No		Send constraints (sites, structures, cemeteries, etc) to project managers and designers to avoid or minimize impacts to resources	NEPA scoping	no projects to date
State DOT		x	x	x	x			x	We typically do early planning and assessments of potential impacts in-house - some projects take a decade or more to come to fruition, and there is a lot of staff turnover. Also the SHPO staff is overwhelmed - when we invite them to early meetings on EA/EIS projects or send information, they rarely attend/respond.	See answer above.	Yes	We do training for environmental project managers and engineers annually.	We typically meet at the scoping or pre-scoping meetings for a project and identify potential impacts or issues prior to design work occurring. We meet with design team early and often, and help to scope history work. For highway corridors, we often do safety and planning studies that identify needed long- and short-term projects, and we look at high-level environmental impacts as part of that effort as well.	NEPA scoping	For design-build, we use early design documents for reviews/Section 106 coordination, and then require updated drawings and review of final plans to ensure consistency. We often also add notes to the early set of plans or set out parameters for design that must be followed or if not, then further coordination with historian is required.
State DOT	Effects not considered during early project planning, I would say our Planning and Envrionmental Linkages (PEL) process, which is pre-NEPA is as close to early planning as we get but even that is pretty 10,000 foot level.					x	We send our PEL to SHPO to review, but we don’t do 106 in PEL so these studies are really just a way of showing known resources in relation to a proposed project area/corridor.		It’s hard to understand effects until you know what the project will be. So, it’s great in theory to say that you’re including historic properties in early planning, like PEL, but that’s really just a look at known resources in a potential project area. That type of study doesn’t look at the actual resources on the ground that may not have been previously documented and until we know what is planned and where, we can’t understand the resource base or evaluate effects properly.	As I noted earlier, we send PEL to SHPO for review, but PEL studies are not Section 106, so the information is just an understanding of known or documented resources in a potential project area.	Yes	We have a part of our PA that allows non-cultural staff to clear certain project activities that have no potential to affect resources--it is not used very often.	We have scoping meetings and sometimes we receive pre-scoping requests for data. These are helpful in understanding up front what historic properties issues there might be.	Typically this happens at scoping but it depends--if there is a larger corridor project or big EIS, this can happen earlier.	Yes
State DOT									They are lazy and don’t care...seriously!! No emphasis on Environmental compliance at ITD.	More complicated projects we involve them early in the process.	No		No specific procedures.	N/A	Have not had NE or NAE in design-build yet.
State SHPO	Projects included in the STIP				x		Projects included in the STIP	x		Through interagency working group - monthly meetings and updates	? this is a DOT question, not SHPO		this is a DOT question, not SHPO		those projects may result in the development of a PA that establishes the path forward for ongoing consultation and completion of 106, with the involvement of the state DOT

Page 123

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Project included in the STIP	Effects not considered during early project planning	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State SHPO						Again, not SHPO’s role. We review what is provided to us.	We usually are not.	unknown		n/a	n/a	n/a
State DOT	This is dependent on the individual project, but we pre-screen in early planning stages			Not until there is a defined undertaking.		There is not enough information that early to understand effects. You may know what historic properties may exist, but not enough to evaluate effects.	Not at the screening level.	Yes	Limited information such as architectural properties. Only cultural resources staff have access to archaeological information.	We have an internal assessment of potential screening process when a project is identified.	Project initiation	In general these types of projects are not suitable for a project No Properties Affected or No Adverse Effect finding. We use programmatic agreements. We have had disputes on the effects to individual properties in these types of projects.
State SHPO			x	After funded and scoped		???	Not in our state	Yes	online database and project submission	N/A	Section 106 Consultation	Not sure
State DOT	For most projects (Categorical Exclusions particularly), effects to historic properties are considered as early as the scoping phase of a project. For larger CatEx projects as well as EA and EIS projects, consideration of historic resources is made as early as when a potential project is identified, such as in the 10-year plan or STIP.			For major projects (large CatEx projects, projects with the potential to adversely affect properties, and EA and EIS projects, the SHPO, THPO, and CPs are contacted around the time a project is initiated or when scoping begins. For smaller CatEx projects, CPs and SHPO are involved partway into the design process (usually at 30% or 60% design).			Generally through coordination meetings to help shape project final design, identify avoidance and minimization measures, and consider mitigation.	Yes	We provide as-needed training to engineers, program managers, and others about the Section 106 process, specifically in terms of what we need from them in order to successfully review a project and move it forward to construction.	Our agency’s Section 106 Programmatic Agreement and Procedures Manual include some details on how internal coordination should occur. We also provide as-needed training and guidance to internal staff on coordination processes.	NEPA scoping	These types of projects typically require multiple reviews and multiple consultation points with SHPO and CPs. We often consult early on with a general proposal of the work, and then submit additional information as it becomes available. At each step, we work with the engineers, project managers, consultants, and contractors on minimization and avoidance measures that we can then bring to SHPO and the CPs at the next consultation point.
State SHPO	Doesn’t apply to SHPO we are often not included			Unfortunately not always included		WSDOT and DOT’s don’t reach out during developing the STIP	N/A	Yes	Our agency has a robust GIS platform to be used by land use and transportation planners.	N/A	N/A	N/A
State DOT		x			x	Responsibility of the MPOS and RPOS upon selection of desired projects	Usually included in long-range planning updates	Yes	historic property database, PennDOT and SHPO staff	Nothing formal usually as early as possible to make all our lives easier	Project initiation	same as regular process, utilizing as much detail as possible in early design phase

Page 124

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Long-range planning	Ten-year planning horizon	Five-year planning horizon	Project included in the STIP	Effects not considered during early project planning	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	Long-range planning	Five-year planning horizon	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State DOT											lack of funding initially	Our DOT advertises all of our 10 year plan meetings, however no special attention has ever been called to cultural resources.	I’m not sure what you mean by tools here?		No formal procedures. Typically internal meetings between the CR staff and the designers are held to review project impacts, identify any red flags, review best coordination efforts with SHPO and any other interested parties.	Section 106 Consultation	we ask that these projects also follow our standard S106 process
State SHPO			x	x					x		My office would be happy to engage	Mostly to identify fatal flaws	there are no non-cultural resources staff in our office		Question does not apply		not applicable
State SHPO		x				x						N/A	Unknown		N/A		N/A
State DOT					x					x	Typically there is not enough design detail to make a finding earlier than project scoping.	Typically SHPO and CPs are only brought into the conversation early when there is a historic bridge project that must be vetted through a rehabilitation analysis process.	Yes	Transportation Planning and Development guidance	Historic Bridge rehabilitation analysis is required of any federal funding on a historic bridge. The project proponent must prove that rehabilitation is not prudent or feasible prior to submitting replacement plans.	NEPA scoping	Uncertain.
State DOT				x	x					x		Initiation of the Section 106 process in letter format = SHPO. Sometimes may personally call SHPO rep to advise of project development.	Yes	The EQ429 is sent out by environmental document writers to all agencies and partners when we are seeking data/input into our activities.	Differs from project to project and in my case my service area covers three different construction districts each one having its own nuanced way to project development. Sometimes it depends on the schedule and the individual project manager and how keen they are on cultural resources, too.	NEPA scoping	Rely on the contract for specifics on how procedures have been ironed out. In years past, my agency has done the preliminary environmental studies and reached milestone conclusions. The D-B then takes over and IF they make any changes that would result in scope change it is incumbent upon them to coordinate with SHPO to determine a same or different outcome.
State SHPO		x	x	x	x			x			N/A	Through consultation...	Not sure what you mean by tools	n/a	Continuous consultation	Section 106 Consultation	n/a
State SHPO	For large transportation projects, they generally identify these potential issues for us at the early stage to avoid an AE						see above				Transportation does that for us	Coordination of concerns, APEs, identification efforts, potential concerns, etc.	No		We don’t have set procedures for early coordination.		Some design-build projects will be processed under a conditional NAE, then will have multiple additional stages of consultation as the identification, effects, and design-build process continues.

Page 125

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Project included in the STIP	Effects not considered during early project planning	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State SHPO	while we advocate for consideration as early as possible, this is ultimately at the agency’s discretion			see above	please see above - we take into consideration the effects as early as possible	see above N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
State SHPO	N/A - work for SHPO			N/A - work for SHPO	N/A - work for SHPO	N/A - work for SHPO	N/A - work for SHPO		N/A - work for SHPO	N/A - work for SHPO	These are typically handled like any other transportation project.
State SHPO	We have a Historic Bridge Inventory that helps with some aspects of this			On the SHPO end we like to be included in everything. That often doesn’t happen but there are some bridges, and properties that we engage in talks on very early on	This is not something my agency can control (The DOT makes its own plans)	We have certain Bridges identified in out Historic Bridge Inventory that the Cultural Resources Unit at the DOT knows to look out for and “flag”	This is a DOT/FHWA question		Again this is more a DOT question. We do communicate with the DOT if they ask us questions but we are not involved in long-range or scope at this time.		Many of these are covered by our PA
State SHPO					I am not part of an agency undertaking projects, member of a SHPO	Should have discussions/emails with SHPO documenting discussions at these early stages. Especially for larger projects.	I am not part of an agency undertaking projects, member of a SHPO		I am not part of an agency undertaking projects, member of a SHPO		I am not part of an agency undertaking projects, member of a SHPO
State SHPO					We are the SHPO and are not doing projects. We always tell agencies they should be thinking about effects early on, but that does not always happen. It seems like many environmental/NEPA practitioners rather mitigate then avoid or minimize--or have no real understanding of Section 106. Cultural resources always seems to be the red-headed step-child and never gets full consideration.	Sometimes we (the SHPO) are brought in early on more complex projects, other times we just have a project submitted to us with no prior conversations.	We have no idea		Sometimes ITD/FHWA will reach out early for complex projects to our office (SHPO)		N/a
State DOT		x	x	Depends on the project	Poor planning	We consult with them often and frequently.	No		In general, we have cultural be the basis of the entire environmental review.	Section 106 Consultation	unsure
State SHPO	As the SHPO, whenever consultation is initiated with us.			We are the SHPO	n/a	n/a	My agency is the SHPO, we are all cultural resources staff		n/a	Section 106 Consultation	n/a

Page 126

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Long-range planning	Project included in the STIP	Effects not considered during early project planning	Long-range planning	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State SHPO								Consultation is generally initiated with us, as SHPO, at different stages during preliminary design.	The question isn’t clear; although we don’t have many non-cultural resources staff to use what might be available.		n/a		n/a
State SHPO		x			x			Invited to join public meetings about long-range planning, corridor studies, etc.	N/A		N/A		N/A
Federal Agency							FHWA oversees the state DOT that does this.	-	Yes	-	-	NEPA scoping	-
State DOT			x	x		x	Time, money and energy, I would guess. We are trying to do more PEL (?) linkage, but I don’t see it happening.	We have a DOT/SHPO liaison, so they can be plugged in. Just doesn’t since we are rarely getting ahead of things here.	Unclear what tools means.		Team meetings, mostly.	Project initiation	Just getting into that for a few projects (design-build (DB) at least), so we don’t have an answer just yet...
State DOT	Project Initiation Package (PIP) (any issues are identified during preliminary design)						During project development, ODOT completes the PIP which includes an early review of the online SHPO GIS map and field review. If an issue or concern is identified, the project team determines what steps are needed.	PI meeting with information on NHPA & CP application, project website with comment forms & CP application. ODO notifies the SHPO of upcoming projects that will require their input.	Yes	CP application, Section 106 handouts for use at PI meetings, online CR manual, SHPO online GIS website.	They contact the CR team for assistance.	NEPA scoping	Yes

Page 127

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Long-range planning	Ten-year planning horizon	Five-year planning horizon	Project included in the STIP	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	Long-range planning	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State DOT	We are still developing a more robust cultural resources component with our planning departments. We are making good headway though.	x			x	We routinely share our draft STIP with Tribes prior to it being finalized. We wait to consult with SHPO until a project is on the STIP		x	We do, we just don’t routinely share with SHPO/THPO until a project is ‘real’ due to workload issues. There is not bandwidth for this often.	We have SHPO liaisons who are ODOT employees and they are involved somewhat in early planning efforts.	Tools for what?		Our program PA outlines process for this. We are currently drafting a new one that will (hopefully) be even more effective.	Project initiation	DB by its nature is not structured for NEPA/Section 106 compliance. We have found that NEPA and Section 106 need to be completed prior to initiation of the DB contract. This presents challenges of course as we are considering the APE and undertaking that we think the project will be, however, that may very well change once handed off to the DB consultant. Not a great fit DB and NEPA/Section 106!
State DOT	We have a ‘preplanning’ process, carried out by planners without CR qualifications.		x						Has not really proven effective. We are quite successful at avoiding adverse effects on the regular Section 106 timeline, except when they are inherently unavoidable (i.e. replacing obsolete or failing historic bridges).	Not.	What exists is of low quality. Mgmt often odes not seek input of key CR qualified staff in developing them.in	“NEPA/CEPA Processes and Procedures Manual”	Minimal. Handled by planning staff without CR qualifications.	Section 106 Consultation	If they are securely no effect or no adverse effect findings there is little issue. It is when we must institute avoidance conditions or such that it becomes difficult to verify compliance.
State DOT					x			x	Organizational/Structural	We follow standard Section 106 procedures tailored to FHWA-RI needs.	Yes	We have created a Permit Tracking Database for Project Managers.	Planners will contact Cultural staff if they perceive an early “issue.” Otherwise, consultation begins in the “scoping” phase, post-planning.	NEPA scoping	We do mostly DB and have done several P3 contracts. All follow the same procedures.
State DOT					x		x			Generally only tribes. The story map created for the long-range plan is provided to tribes to comment on.	No		There is public feedback on the long-range plan. Most projects on the STIP have some concept-level process where known or potential cultural resources can be identified but there is not much work on avoidance or minimization at that stage. Otherwise those conversations happen during project initiation or scoping.	NEPA scoping	Yes
State DOT				x		unknown				Early solicitation letters, but not for every project	Yes	Scoping reviews by cultural resources staff, Integration of previously identified historic properties into agency GIS platform	Scoping reviews by cultural resources staff	NEPA scoping	Unknown

Page 128

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Long-range planning	Project included in the STIP	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State DOT						Agency generally develop avoidance and minimization methods in the environmental phase PA&ED, rather than in the planning or scoping phases.	they are not involved in pre-PAED work	Yes	Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference	complete a preliminary environmental assessment report scoping for 106 compliance (level of document and hours needed).	Section 106 Consultation	no
Local Government						My local government does not have involvement or the local departments involved do not seek this input or considerations early in the process.	I don’t know.	No		None that I am aware of		I am not sure.
State DOT		x	x	They are not		NA	Informational meetings and emails	Yes	Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference	Project Initiation Documents are reviewed by cultural staff before programing	Project initiation	N/A
State DOT	Environmental Scoping		x		x		For STIP projects it is regular Section 106 consultation, starting early. For NEPA studies ditto.	I don’t understand what kind of tools you are looking for.		Core teams, the project development process	all of the above	Yes
State DOT	Scoping/design - resource identification often precedes scoping.			Typically only at AE level projects		Sometimes at the resource identification/scoping phase an alternative or design has not been selected.	Public meetings	Yes	Transportation Equity Framework, public outreach manual, public outreach staff	Scope collaboration meetings, priority meetings, staff meetings	Project initiation	Resource identification and avoidance/minimization discussions might happen at project review phase (Section 106/NEPA) rather than as part of a scoping process.
local government that receives FHWA funding for projects	local agency TIP - when project is initiated			local agency TIP- when project is initiated		it would be a very broad stroke approach so would be somewhat meaningless.	They are involved at early design phase- typically 30% design phase.	Yes	we have recorded site data made available by SHPO through data sharing agreement.	We do archaeological screening using recorded site GIS data made available by WA state DAHP/SHPO through data sharing agreement.	Project initiation	No experience with this.

Page 129

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Project included in the STIP	Effects not considered during early project planning	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	Long-range planning	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State DOT	x			x			APE or Scoping information automatically copied to SHPO and publicly.	Other agency staff are copied on the responses.		At the scoping field views.	NEPA scoping	Poorly. Many P3 companies have no idea of PennDOT’s internal operations or procedures with regard to cultural resources. Even within the P3 company, if we have their CR staff on board, there are so many firms involved, inter-firm coordination is often lacking, other than design.
State DOT	x				x	Not enough time or people to do that.	Sometimes the SHPO or tribes are invited to PEL studies.	Yes	We have an entire webpage of guidance for NEPA folks (and engineers) working throughout the state. It is publicly available. Pre-covid we’d go and give training to engineers but that has fallen by the wayside. We are trying to pick that program back up.	How early is early? I don’t learn about a project until usually a year or less from when DOT wants to let the project for construction. We don’t do well at this.	Project initiation	With conditions in the DB contract and project PA for 106.
State SHPO	x	x	When the agency intitiates consultation			When there is confusion about consultation responsibilites.	Usually through annual review of eSTIPs, or consultation to establishing the level of effort for identification and evaluation other than as defined in programmatic or other agreements.	No		It depends on the lead agency’s consultation efforts.	Section 106 Consultation	Again, it depends on the lead agancy’s consultation efforts.
State DOT	x		Not this early.				They are not, consideration is just internal.	Largely relies on being pointed towards CR staff.		Regular monthly - quarterly meetings of design groups with environmental (including CR) staff to review future projects.	NEPA scoping	Set up task groups and by-weekly meetings with the CM/GC teams.

Page 130

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	Five-year planning horizon	Project included in the STIP	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State DOT	x	x	x	It’s mostly a matter of practicality; lack of time and staffing resources. We do look ahead and identify areas that may have significant resources and concentrations of significant resources to try to ensure that the project delivery schedule takes these factors into to account.	informally involved	Yes	GIS related tools designed to help non-cultural resource staff identify significant non-archaeological properties and tribal boundaries	We hold Project Coordination Meetings (PCMs) for each project where we discuss and consider a wide range of environmental and design factors, including cultural resources. These meetings consist of 1) PCM 20, a kick off meeting where the project is introduced and the team shares file search results and identifies any concerns or areas to avoid; 2) PCM 30, preliminary LOCs are available and the plan in hand meeting has been scheduled. We aim to have our field investigations completed by PCM 30 so that we can share this information with the team. The Design team works to avoid and minimize effects; 3) PCM 35 this meeting occurs after the plan in hand meeting, final LOCs should be known. If historic properties are present, we make sure that they will not be affected or we document those steps taken to avoid an adverse effect; PCM 70, this meeting occurs right before PS&E turn in to ensure that everyone is on the still on same page and the plans reflect any avoidance areas and special commitments/provisions.	Project initiation	n/a
State DOT				We have been trying to move consideration of potential effects up to the planning process, with minimal success. We have been able to make identification of resources a more robust part of the planning process.	They have an opportunity to review TYP and TIP lists and provide feedback regarding historic properties.	Yes	An extensive cultural resources handbook, non-cultural resources staff trainings	Cultural resources staff are included in scoping field views to provide early identification of potential challenges/opportunities regarding historic and archaeological properties.	NEPA scoping	Our cultural resources staff make effect determinations on DB projects and ensure any restrictions or conditions made during consultation are included in the NEPA document. Most P3 effects determinations are made by the private partnering firm’s cultural resources staff. Our staff is available for guidance and review of the final NEPA documents.
State DOT	x	x	x	Agency priorities and values / local culture	Official consultation	Not sure		Team meetings, etc.	NEPA scoping	We follow procedure as much as possible.

Page 131

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Long-range planning	Ten-year planning horizon	Five-year planning horizon	Project included in the STIP	Effects not considered during early project planning	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	Long-range planning	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State DOT										I think because effects to historic properties are typically of such small cost compared to construction costs, and the need to satisfy legislative directives on preferred projects.	We consult with Tribes and the SHPO yearly on STIP projects, at least at a high-level overview.	We have a strong cultural resources program with SOI-qualified staff, and non-cultural resources staff are required to work with them on cultural resources issues.		We have written policies including an Environmental Manual that lays out the process for coordination among planning staff, including flow charts and explanatory text.	Section 106 Consultation	We maintain control over the Section 106 process in DB projects, with the DB consultant having to work directly with the Cultural Resources Program and on our schedule/timeline; it has been challenging, but has worked. We typically do not do P3 projects.
Federal Agency						x				Not involved - local planning process	MPO outreach	Yes	standard operating procedures, handbook	Nothing formal	Section 106 Consultation	Programmatic Agreements
State DOT	We sometimes consider them during corridor or feasibility planning, too, especially if there is a public concern identified at that stage.			x			We invite the SHPO and Tribes to participate in all our planning documents, but do not receive any participation from them at the planning stages.			The planning is done by people/consultants very unfamiliar with the environmental process or even who to invite as stakeholders. We are slowly working with our planners and districts on training.	Usually invited by letter to participate in public meetings or scoping efforts.	There are, but we haven’t really rolled them out yet due to being short-staffed on our end. The tools were recently finalized and it is a 2023 goal.	Stand alone webinars on the historic preservation process and CPs; GIS tools showing areas of particular concern to tribes	None, it seems like we invent them with each project. If the agency staff has been around a while, they are better at doing early internal coordination.		We typically put all environmental changes and recoordination of any effects findings on the contractor to fulfill. That has had varying levels of success.
Federal Agency					x	x			x	most of the time it is because there is no link between the planning side of the house and the NEPA / section 106 side and or not enough project information is known to make effect determinations as design has not happened yet.	some are some are not.	Yes	FHWA Section 106 online tutorial, AASHTO practitioner’s handbook #6	FHWA guidance on this	any of these may be appropriate.	how much risk is a state and or lead federal agency willing to take.
State SHPO		x	x	x	x	x		x		We do consider effects early in the process	We try to establish relationships with state and federal agencies - but encourage all applicants via our website	No formal tools but we are willing to assist		We encourage applicants to reach out early in the process and involve SHPO and potential CPs in project management.	Project initiation	We strive to offer flexibility and an open line of communication.
State SHPO	we are a consulting agency, this question relates to FHWA and WV DOH.						best answered by our sister agency, WV Division of Highways			again, refer to WV DOH	It depends upon the project and its magnitude	not applicable		THe SHPO will engage in consultation when the agency requests our assistance.	Section 106 Consultation	not applicable

Page 132

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Long-range planning	Ten-year planning horizon	Five-year planning horizon	Project included in the STIP	Effects not considered during early project planning	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	Project included in the STIP	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State DOT	During the initial environmental review for the project.						After the completion of the initial environmental review and project design or footprint.			They are advised of the project, given a description, and mapping of the proposed APE for the project. The letter invites them to be a consulting party and that they need to let VDOT know within 30 days whether they wish to accept the invitation.	Yes	A database that identifies previously recorded cultural resources.	The initial scoping phase of the project.	NEPA scoping	VDOT coordinates the effect of a project on historic properties prior to the project being handed over to the DB or to the concessionaire. VDOT typically closes 106 with a programmatic agreement that states that as the project is currently designed there is a no effect or no adverse effect, with stipulations in the PA stated that any design changes will be coordinated with the SHPO and CPs with a focus on maintaining the no effect or no adverse effect determination.
State SHPO					x	x		x	Too long-range and likelihood of changes over time	We have a Programmatic Agreement that deals with early planning	Don’t know		Don’t know not part of this stage		Ensure that any conditions are included in project contracts and on project plans
State SHPO	This is up to WisDOT. We don’t use these terms so I’m not sure how to answer this question. We can see projects 5 to 10 years in advance so I’ll tentatively say yes?	x	x	x	x		THPOs are consulted the same time as SHPO, so I’m guessing the answer is the same as above.			We see community specific long-range transportation plans, corridor studies, initial 106 materials that are 5 to 15 years out are as wide as possible and then reduced throughout the process depending on money, purpose and need, and effect to historic properties.	Yes	We have a fairly large section of our agency’s website which provides databases, FAQs, process documents. It’s all available to the public as well as staff.	Doesn’t apply to us here at the SHPO. Our project database has a field for other agency project numbers, so once materials do start coming in to us, we attach everything to a record in a database that tracks all correspondence for any given project.	Section 106 Consultation	So far these alternatives haven’t had much bearing on our process in the SHPO. We’re happy to accommodate whatever timeline the project team sets for themselves and in whatever order they do it, but nothing changes all that much from the perspective of the SHPO project reviewer.
State DOT	I am not always notified early in the process, but am trying to train the others to include me.				x		Typically only at the consultation level after the survey and determination of effect are made.		Don’t see a need to include me in the early stages mostly.	Rarely involved, if at all.	No		None		NA
State SHPO	i am not the agency planning the project						FHWA review process is guided by a programmatic agreement			project dependent	i dont know		na	unknown	na

Page 133

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	4-1a. At what stage in the early planning process does your agency consider effects to historic properties to avoid or minimize potential effects? (Select all that apply)	Long-range planning	Five-year planning horizon	Project included in the STIP	4-1b. At what stage in the early planning process are SHPOs, Tribes, NHOs and other CPs involved in terms of the consideration of potential effects to historic properties?	Long-range planning	4-1c. Is there a reason why your agency does not consider these potential effects in these early planning efforts?	4-2. How are the SHPO and other CPs involved in these early planning efforts?	4-3. Are there tools available for the agency’s non-cultural resources staff?	4-3a. If “yes”, please describe the tool(s)	4-4. What procedures, if any, does your agency have for early internal coordination among cultural resource staff, planners, project managers, and project designers/engineers to consider the avoidance or minimization of potential effects and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-4a. If your agency does have procedures for early internal coordination, when do you typically engage these senior project decision-makers to consider avoidance and minimization measures and potential conflicts with the Section 106 CPs and the public?	4-5. How have you handled no effect and no adverse effect determinations in terms of alternative approaches to project delivery such as design-build or P3 projects?
State SHPO							We are the SHPO and will consult on any 106 project at any stage but we don’t determine the stages	Consultation on any questions/concerns	Idk		NA		NA
State DOT							We consider historic resources early in the process just not necessarily that early. We have very good records of historic bridges, historic culverts, historic properties and districts, archaeological sites, cemeteries, and previously surveyed areas. This information is all available to our planning agencies. The biggest concern we run into is historic bridges and that is something that all involved can keep track of.	N/A	Yes	Ohio DOT’s Transportation Information Management System and Ohio SHPO’s GIS system	As soon as a project is programmed the project team discusses potential issues. If Section 106 is a potential issue, the Central Office cultural staff are brought in and we work with the districts to plan.	We try to do it at project initiation but sometimes it happens at NEPA scoping.	We typically complete the NEPA process before the DB process is initiated. We may clear a larger area than ultimately necessary but that way we aren’t relying on the contractor.
State DOT			x		It is rare, but occasionally we will reach out early if the circumstances warrant. Usually there is simply not enough information to do so.			If the SHPO is involved it could be determining survey boundaries or providing a very early, preliminary, effect determination.	I’m sorry, I don’t understand this question unless you mean are other environmental factors also involved in early planning efforts? If so, yes, but not with any special tools.		As noted earlier, we have a working process outline for these types of coordination and routinely work with a variety of other DOT staff to avoid and minimize effects.	It can range from prior to project initiation (if we are doing a PEL), to scoping, to consultation. It depends upon the project. The goal is to do it as early as possible.	For DB projects, it has meant everything from rare site visits with the SHPO to very specifically-worded language in the documents. The latter is something I always strive for, to make it clear what the constraints are for the historic resources within the project area. Again, it is project and context dependent.
Federal Agency		x		x		x		They are sent the document for review but they typically do not provide comments.	Yes	Minor projects PA is used for preservation projects that meet certain criteria and do not require review by cultural resource professionals.	When projects are programmed there is some opportunity for internal staff to review the proposed projects.	Section 106 Consultation	Typically through project-level agreement documents that outline how continued consultation with occur.
State DOT	Early planning consideration varies widely across the state. The earliest that effects are currently considered is when projects are being initiated and put on the STIP			x	Procedures are currently being developed for improved involvement in the early planning process.		There is not enough known about projects in early planning - consultation at this early stage would be of little value.	Procedures are currently being developed for improved involvement in the early planning process.	No		None		For DB projects, we complete Section 106 prior to Notice to Proceed. Any changes require further coordination.

Page 134

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

TRIBAL CONTACTS AND ENGAGEMENT

What have you found to be the best methods used to engage with tribes/NHOs? _______

SEE RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ABOVE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES

Page 135

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	5-1. What have you found to be the best methods used to engage with tribes/NHOs?
State DOT	email provides the most direct approach
State DOT	NA
State DOT	This is not my area of expertise but I can say that we’ve used a variety of approaches depending on the project--for our I70 Mountain Corridor project, which covers I-70 from Denver to Glenwood Springs, we developed a broad PA and also a separate PA with the tribes.
State DOT	Early coordination with tribes is essential. Providing written project information, not just electronic information. No project-specific coordination meetings with tribes once or twice a year.
State SHPO	this is a DOT question, not SHPO
State SHPO	It should be done early and often.
State DOT	We have a standard form and process for tribal communication. In Maryland tribal interest is limited in comparison with other states, as we have no federally recognized tribes resident/land-holding in the state.
State SHPO	Early coordination
State DOT	I typically do not coordinate with THPOs and tribes; this is handled by my agency’s senior archaeologist.
State SHPO	N/A
State SHPO	WSDOT has a statewide programmatic and smaller consultation agreements
State DOT	Tribal coordination liaison
State DOT	We invite to our monthly virtual meetings, however we acknowledge that this is not a best approach.
State SHPO	My office has regular meetings, but the agency is responsible for consultation
State SHPO	N/A
State DOT	Email with a simple form explaining the project
State DOT	Still seems to be in early development as to proper protocol. The FHWA division prefers to take the lead in engaging through official written correspondence.
State SHPO	Have no experience as of yet.
State SHPO	Transportation does tis.
State SHPO	direct phone calls and emails
State SHPO	N/A - work for SHPO on historic architecture end
State SHPO	The FHWA does most of the THPO and tribe consulting. DOT will send letters. The SHPO will send letters or call if we need to engage with those groups
State SHPO	Hard copy letter, followed up by a phone call and an email with documents attatched.
State SHPO	N/A
State DOT	THPOs, tribal cultural staff
State SHPO	N/A
State SHPO	I don’t have experience with these efforts.

Page 136

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	5-1. What have you found to be the best methods used to engage with tribes/NHOs?
State SHPO	N/A
Federal Agency	Written communication.
State DOT	Should inquire with Tobin Bottman, ODOT archy
State DOT	N/A
State DOT	Ongoing interactions, recurring meetings to discuss current and upcoming projects. It is all about relationship maintenance.
State DOT	Direct communication with DOT qualified staff instead of second hand through Fed agencies. Unfortunately, that does not happen anymore, and relationship with Tribes has suffered.
State DOT	We have had (and are in negotiations for a new) Tribal Monitoring Agreement. Otherwise, the relationship between the THPO and the State of Rhode Island is somewhat fraught.
State DOT	Email
State DOT	unknown
State DOT	N/A
Local Government	I have not had any involvement with tribes.
State DOT	N/A
State DOT	Not my area of expertise
State DOT	Phone
local government that receives FHWA funding for projects	we engage with tribes through regular recurring meetings on natural resource issues- when we have cultural resources related issues we coordinate with staff archaeologist to initiate tribal/THPO communications. We do site visits and other meetings as applicable. Some tribes will be present during field work (shovel probes).
State DOT	Program-wide consultation on a multi-year cycle to go over what each Tribe’s expectations are and to develop working arrangements with each on how they will be engaged.
State DOT	N/A our archaeologists handle that.
State SHPO	Via email and phone calls.
State DOT	Early consultation. We have no direct contact unless requested as all contact is with FHWA.
State DOT	Early and often. and with transparency
State DOT	Developing relationships with the Tribes and NHOs built on trust and an understanding of both parties’ roles is important. The Department also has one point person within our cultural resources staff who works with the Tribes/NHOs on introducing new policies/policy changes, signatures on PAs or similar documents, etc.
State DOT	Letters followed up with phone calls.
State DOT	We consult directly with Tribes, early and often, and meet with each Tribe once a year to go over upcoming projects and the STIP.
Federal Agency	phone calls and zoom calls
State DOT	In person meetings
Federal Agency	standard tribal consultation via in person and virtual

Page 137

Suggested Citation: "Appendix A: State of Practice Survey Questionnaire (Agencies) and Response Matrix." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Creating a Handbook for Successful No-Effect and No-Adverse-Effect Section 106 Determinations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/29036.

2-1. What agency do you work for?	5-1. What have you found to be the best methods used to engage with tribes/NHOs?
State SHPO	Regularly scheduled meetings (webinars) by the lead federal agency, permitting time for listening and discussing solutions to issues.
State SHPO	not applicable.
State DOT	Letters via email from FHWA.
State SHPO	Through the federal agency with the THPO
State SHPO	WisDOT handles this but I’ve heard from THPOs anecdotally that they prefer email. WisDOT had a project portal that they ran for years specifically for THPOs but I heard is was not utilized much.
State DOT	I am still working to build this relationship. Mostly, I try for in person meetings or phone calls. But most of the communication is through emails right now.
State SHPO	N/A
State SHPO	Established relationships and continuing communication
State DOT	Frequent, informal contact. We have a tribal liaison who maintains contact with our tribal representatives even when we don’t have projects to coordinate. This maintains our relationship with our tribal reps. Good personal relationships are key.
State DOT	N/A for my position.
Federal Agency	Through an automated notification system the state DOT has developed.
State DOT	Email correspondence. Specifically, responsiveness is much improved over using paper correspondence.