Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities (2020)

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.

14 5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL NEW NATIONAL PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES 5.1 POSSIBLE PROGRAM COMMENT FOR POST-WORLD WAR II HOUSING A program comment on post-World War II housing might be built on NCHRP Report 723: A Model for Identifying and Evaluating the Historic Significance of Post-World War II Housing (2012). This NCHRP study provides a national historic context for understanding the development of postwar housing and a guide for the evaluation of postwar residential types. Report 723 also presents a tested methodology for determining the NRHP eligibility and non-eligibility of single-family housing built between 1946 and 1975. The study also includes a model historic context outline that can be used for developing project or regionally specific historic contexts. This model outline follows the organization of the national context. The program comment for post-World War II housing might reference NCHRP Report 723 as a tool for applying NRHP criteria of significance to a district. Using a historic context prepared following the guidance in NCHRP Report 723 or using an already existing state or metropolitan area historic context, agencies can then consult with the appropriate SHPO and other consulting parties on the eligibility of districts. Following the results of the survey and interviews for Task 116, a program comment for postwar housing might focus only on post-World War II residential districts and individual houses of exceptional significance. For an individual house to be of exceptional significance, a house would have state or national significance rather than local significance and have an association with a significant person, important event, or represent a high style of architecture. If an individual house were not of exceptional significance, the house would require no further Section 106 review. The program comment might also include a list of state DOT activities that would be exempt from further consideration under Section 106 because the effects of these activities on NRHP-listed or eligible post- 1945 residential districts would be minimal. Example activities might include in-kind repairs and changes to streets, roads, sidewalks, and landscaping that are non-contributing components of a district. 5.2 POSSIBLE EXEMPTION FOR CLASSES OF MINOR PROJECTS A national exemption for minor state DOT transportation projects would provide a streamlined approach to Section 106 compliance for projects that would have no or minimal effect to historic properties. This type of program alternative would allow state DOTs to easily remove certain classes of undertakings from further consideration under Section 106, allowing the agencies and SHPOs to focus on actions that do have the potential to adversely affect historic properties. The exemption would stipulate the conditions under which an action would be considered exempt and would also stipulate the qualifications of the state DOT personnel making the decision as to whether an action is exempt from further review. The following is a possible list of such exempted actions. Any list included in an exemption would be negotiated among the transportation agencies, SHPOs, and the ACHP. This list is built on the findings of NCRHP 25-25, Task 91, Synthesis of Transportation Exclusions to Section 106 Review (2015) and the survey and interview results of the current study.  Maintenance and repair work within existing ROW, such as filling ruts and potholes, crack sealing, and drainage maintenance  Pavement resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, overlay, sealing, filling, milling, grinding, grooving, etc., within previously disturbed ROW

15  Maintenance, repair, or in-kind replacement of lighting, signals, and other traffic control systems within previously disturbed ROW  Maintenance, repair, or in-kind replacement of highway signs, advisory signs, warning signs, interpretative signs, etc., within previously disturbed ROW  In-kind replacement or repair of existing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks  In-kind replacement of railing, guardrails, and median barriers  Installation, removal, or replacement of pavement markers, rumble strips, roadway striping, traffics sensors, etc.  Striping of bicycle lanes on existing pavement  The repair, replacement, and/or maintenance of non-NRHP eligible or listed culverts and other drainage structures, storm water facilities, and sewers when the work is confined to previously disturbed soils within the existing ROW  Installation, repair, or replacement of highway ROW fencing in previously disturbed soils  The replacement, rehabilitation, reconstruction, maintenance, and repair of bridges not previously listed in or determined to not be eligible for listing in the NRHP, and not already exempted by an existing procedure or agreement  Landscaping maintenance, mowing, burning, and cutting; and spraying of noxious weeds within and adjacent to the ROW  ADA, curb ramp, and safety projects outside an NRHP-listed or eligible historic property boundary  Traffic-calming measures outside an NRHP-listed or eligible historic district and individual property boundaries  Maintenance, repair, replacement, or installation of bicycle, bus, and pedestrian facilities and bus shelters outside NRHP-listed or eligible historic districts or individual property boundaries