Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION NCHRP 25-25, Task 116 examines how the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) have used national program alternatives to streamline and enhance their Section 106 programs and project delivery efforts. Establishment of program alternatives are provided for in the Section 106 implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800 Protection of Historic Properties. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and FHWA have put in place two national program alternatives. One is an exemption (referred to as âexempted categoriesâ in 36 CFR 800.14 (c)) for the Interstate Highway System implemented in 2005, and the second is a program comment (pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14 (e)) on common types of post-1945 concrete and steel bridges implemented in 2012. The ACHP and the Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Transit Administration have also implemented a program comment in 2018 involving rail properties within rail rights-of-way (ROW). Program alternatives allow federal agencies to tailor the Section 106 process to meet their project delivery and program needs, by establishing methods and approaches that are different from standard Section 106 compliance as laid out in the Section 106 regulation (i.e., 36 CFR 800.3-6). The program alternatives listed in 36 CFR 800.14 (ACHP 2018) include the following. ï· Development of alternative Section 106 procedures ï· Development of programmatic agreements ï· Identification of exempted categories ï· Development of standard treatments ï· Development of program comments Two publications that are critical to the current NCHRP project are the reports on NCHRP 25-25 Tasks 91 and 107. Task 91, Synthesis of Transportation Exclusions to Section 106 Review (Klein et al. 2015), examined the use of exemptions to Section 106 review that are stipulated in Section 106 delegation programmatic agreements (PAs) developed by FHWA and state DOTs. This study highlights the most frequent types of undertakings exempted from further Section 106 review though these PAs. The study found that most of these undertakings fall under the Roadways category, followed by Miscellaneous. The Roadways category includes such actions as general maintenance and repair; pavement resurfacing, restoration, and replacement; lane additions and widening; intersection improvements; and roadway safety. The Miscellaneous category includes actions such as land acquisition and disposal; noise barriers; curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; recreational trails; and activities involving DOT-owned properties. NCHRP Task 107, Section 106 Delegation Programmatic Agreements: Review and Best Practices (Graham and Klein 2019), provides practical guidance for the preparation, modification, and implementation of Section 106 delegation PAs. Task 107, which builds on and updates information in Task 91, examines cases in which these PAs allow state DOTs to determine if a project, activity, or action has no or low potential to affect historic properties, based on a set of conditions and/or project type, and then conduct reviews of these projects without SHPO consultation. These cases can serve as potential national exempted categories. The project team for the NCHRP 25-25, Task 116 study surveyed and interviewed state DOTs, FHWA division offices, and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) staff about their experiences with the two transportation-related program comments noted above. The surveys and interviews also asked these agency staff about their views on potential new national program alternatives that might be of value to streamline and enhance Section 106 compliance for transportation projects. The project team also surveyed one non-transportation agency and the consultant community.
2 Based on the surveys and interviews, the agencies identified two program alternatives of high value to future transportation projects, both discussed in this report: ï· A program alternative for post-World War II housing. Respondents noted that this should be done through either a program comment or an exemption. It was suggested that this might best be approached like the program comment for post-1945 concrete and steel bridges. It also was noted that any program alternative must include guidance. ï· National program alternatives for minor classes of projects and actions. Respondents favored covering actions such as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) projects (e.g., accessible sidewalks, curb ramps, and safety projects in historic districts), traffic-calming measures, in-kind landscaping, brush removal, mowing, spraying, bridge deck and substructure rehabilitation on bridges not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), streetscape improvements in non-historic areas, and in-kind replacement of modern materials (e.g., concrete sidewalks, curbs). In addition, a broad range of routine roadway maintenance actions was suggested, including milling and paving, signal upgrades and repair, signage, pavement overlays, sealing, and striping. The majority of the respondents favored doing this via exempted projects and actions.
