Programmatic Agreement

Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Programmatic Agreement (PA) approach is innovative and was specifically developed to streamline the normal Section 106 historic properties identification and evaluation process, with the main goal being to save clients and agencies time and money. The Section 106 process, in some cases, is streamlined because it would be cost prohibitive and impractical to perform fieldwork at every location of anticipated ground disturbance or survey every building before a preliminary project design for an undertaking is completed. In other words, it would be cost and time prohibitive to follow the typical Section 106 process of the NHPA in terms of testing all alternatives.

In some cases, a project’s setting, complexity, and size dictate the use of a PA. A PA can eliminate the possibility of collecting redundant site information, and reduce the area of potential effects and repeated returns to the same area to perform archaeological subsurface testing and architectural history surveys.

Advantages of Using a PA

As one example, a PA was developed for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s I-95 project. The PA stipulated that all archaeological testing should follow the methods as described in the Phase IA archaeological sensitivity study for the project. The sensitivity study was a site-specific guide to locate and identify archaeological resources within an urban environment throughout the project area. The archaeological sensitivity study presented historic and prehistoric research designs that ranked historic and prehistoric archaeological resources for the entire project area.

The ranking criteria defined the site-specific environmental and historic research directed at every location slated for subsurface disturbance in order to determine areas of high, low, and no potential for the location of archaeological sites. The research design and study explain which historic lots are most likely to contain information (i.e., part of the archaeological record) that is significant to Philadelphia history in regard to the research design. The areas that potentially contain significant prehistoric archaeological resources were also identified within a separate research design in this study. It should be noted that all parties that signed the PA agreed that eighteenth-, nineteenth-, and early-twentieth-century domestic and industrial deposits, if found intact, would be significant. Also, all parties agreed that any intact Native American sites would be significant.

Using a PA resulted in significant project cost savings, a shortened project schedule, and sensitivity to all descendant communities. Overall, the staged approach by section and level of effort ensured that the complex I-95 project would be carried out in an efficient, timely, and cost-effective fashion. These savings can be recognized because of specific streamlined archaeological methods described in the Phase IA archaeological sensitivity study and summarized below.

• All interested parties or descendant communities were involved in the process. These parties—including the Northern Liberties Historical Society, Fishtown Historical Society, and the Delaware Nation, to name a few—are noted in the research design.
• The project area was segmented into sections based on highway construction activities that can stand alone in terms of archaeological testing and costs.
• The project’s archaeological area of potential effects was greatly reduced as a result of the sensitivity study, representing additional cost savings. Many areas were eliminated from archaeological testing and other areas were designated for monitoring only.
• Each area of ground disturbance was ranked and a staged approach introduced. Two-thirds of the low-potential areas were eliminated from testing. The remaining 1/3 of the low-potential areas would be tested based on the results of the high-potential area tests. High-potential areas would be tested first. In this method, if no sites are found within a given section once the initial high-potential areas are examined, then the remaining areas within that section may not need to be tested, resulting in a return of hours project time. Furthermore, the remaining low-potential areas may not need to be tested at all, depending on the high-potential results.
• An important method governed by the PA involved the collapsed Phase IB/II/III site assessments. In this approach, if no sites are identified, or a site is disturbed, then the testing will be considered complete. If a site is identified and intact historic or prehistoric deposits are excavated and sampled, then a National Register decision meeting would occur onsite to expedite the process and provide significant cost savings. The National Register decision makers in this case were the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, in consultation with AECOM. Depending on the potential significance of a site, National Register decision meetings can occur via telephone conferences with digital images, or can consist of actual site visits. The important points to be noted here are that the ground is opened only one time and that site assessment may occur in as little as 24 hours. One of the following outcomes will result from the National Register decision regarding an uncovered site: 1) the site is not eligible and no further work is required; 2) the Phase II effort provided enough of a field sample to adequately mitigate adverse effects to the site; or 3) additional mitigation is needed.
• Mitigation activities matched the research design as presented in the Phase IA archaeological sensitivity report.

Project Fact Sheets