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.

A-1 APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS, AND SUMMARY OF SURVEY AND INTERVIEW RESULTS Survey questionnaires (along with requests for interviews) were sent to all state DOTs, SHPOs, and FHWA division offices. The project team received completed surveys from or conducted interviews with respondents from 15 state DOTs. The team received five completed surveys from FHWA division offices and eight SHPOs. All of these represent one response from each agency. The team received one response from a non-transportation agency (three requests were sent out), and only two completed surveys from consultants. Questionnaires were sent to the consultant community through the TRB ADC50 committee list serve and through the ACRA list serve. The project team also interviewed the FHWA FPO and FHWA ACHP liaison. The survey and interviews were conducted from April through August of 2019. STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION 1. Have you had personal experience in the implementation of the ACHP’s 2012 Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges? If so, see questions below: 1A. Did the use of this program comment streamline Section 106 compliance and project delivery, and if so, how? Twelve state respondents noted that they have used this program comment. Three respondents said that they did not because these classes of historic bridges had already been included in their statewide historic bridge inventories and programmatic agreements/management plans. Those states that used the program comment noted that this program alternative served its intended purpose: reducing time spent preparing for and conducting Section 106 review and consultations on projects involving these bridge types. One state DOT respondent stated this program comment was particularly useful in streamlining area-wide projects that contain multiple bridges, such as region-scale, federally funded, preventative maintenance projects. 1B. Did the use of this program comment streamline compliance with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations, and if so, how? The majority of state DOT respondents that had used this program comment noted that this program alternative did streamline compliance with Section 4(f) after the Section 4(f) regulatory update. 1C. Did you encounter any difficulties in using this program comment? If you did, please briefly describe these difficulties. Eight state DOT respondents said they had no difficulties in using the program comment. Two state DOT respondents noted that some SHPO staff members were confused or did not understand the program comment, but this was rectified through a bit of education and discussion. One state DOT respondent said that some of its staff members were confused about the program comment and its complexities. As a result, this state DOT developed an in-house “How To” memo on the use of the program comment. One state DOT made an observation that while they use the program comment and have encountered no issues or difficulties in using the program comment; however, they believe it should have been “post- World War II” and not “post-1945” in its coverage. Their reasoning is that World War II ended on September 2, 1945 and then construction started to boom in the United States. In their view, as written,

  A-2 the program comment does not cover bridges constructed postwar from September 2, 1945, to December 31, 1945. 1D. Did you encounter any conflicts with the use of this program comment in terms of complying with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations? If you did, please briefly describe these conflicts. Twelve state DOT respondents indicated that they did not encounter any conflicts. 2. Have you had personal experience in the implementation of the 2018 Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-of-Way? If so: Respondents from two state DOTs have used this program comment. 2A. Did the use of this program alternative streamline Section 106 compliance and project delivery, and if so, how? The two respondents that had used the program comment said that it did streamline compliance. 2B. Did the use of this program alternative streamline compliance with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations, and if so, how? One state DOT respondent reported that it streamlined Section 4(f) compliance. 2C. Did you encounter any difficulties in using this program alternative? If you did, please briefly describe these difficulties. One state DOT respondent noted that it did not encounter any difficulties. 2D. Did you encounter any conflicts with the use of this program alternative in terms of complying with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations? If you did, please briefly describe these conflicts. The two state DOT respondents who have used the program comment noted that they did not encounter any conflicts. 3. In terms of streamlining Section 106 compliance, are there other types of ubiquitous properties, such as historic roads, irrigation systems, and isolated and unassociated historical features (such as refuse dumps and scatters), that can be addressed through a program alternative? Please briefly explain your answer. [Note: we have a separate question about post-World War II housing, below.] The following is a sample of the types of ubiquitous properties the state DOTs listed for inclusion within a program alternative. As can be seen, many of these are linear historic features and structures.  Historic roads  Trails  Historic telephone lines  Historic pipelines  Utility distribution systems  Irrigation canals/systems

  A-3  Trash dumps and scatters of an undetermined age  Unassociated twentieth-century refuse dumps and scatters  Buried brick streets  Common post-World War II commercial properties such as strip malls and service industry buildings  Pre-World War II rural farm above-ground properties  Post-World War II rural farmstead archaeological sites One respondent noted that because of the regional nature of such properties, it would be more effective for each state DOT to identify the features/properties that are ubiquitous, along with their contexts, and work with their SHPO on a statewide Section 106 PA or exempted properties list. 4. If there are types of ubiquitous properties that can be addressed through a program alternative, what type of program alternative would be most appropriate? Please briefly explain your answer. State DOT respondents supported applying a program comment, like the one for concrete and steel bridges, to these classes of ubiquitous properties, or possibly exempted categories. One respondent noted additional nationwide historic contexts would be helpful. Another DOT respondent noted, similar to the above comment, each state DOT should work with their SHPO and consulting parties to identify properties to be included in a program comment. 5. Would you recommend the development of a program comment or exempted categories or other type of program alternative for post-World War II housing? Please briefly explain your answer. All but one of the responses from state DOT staff noted they would like to see such a program alternative. Most said that a program comment might be the best type of program alternative, one similar to the comment on concrete and steel bridges. Some state DOT respondents noted that whatever program alternative was developed, it should not be burdensome to use (especially in terms of background work); and it needs to include clear guidance related to a property threshold. For example, a single stand-alone property would always be exempt, but it would not be exempt in the context of a historic district. Each state DOT should identify specific properties or types of properties that would not be exempted (and would, therefore, be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP or would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis). One state DOT respondent said that it would be good to categorically exclude projects from having to evaluate modern developments (including post-World War II housing) when only minor amounts of ROW will be taken and no features that would be considered contributing (if a property were eligible) will be removed or altered. 6. In terms of streamlining Section 106 compliance, are there classes of projects that can be addressed through a program alternative, whereby these projects would be exempted from Section 106 review (i.e., an exempted category)? Examples might include certain types of pavement resurfacing, restoration, and replacement projects; in-kind replacement of roadway and streetscape features; certain types of bridge maintenance and repairs; certain types of roadway monitoring and surveillance facilities; or vegetation control activities. Please briefly explain your answer.  

  A-4 The following are a sample of the types of actions state DOT respondents identified for inclusion in a program alternative:  ADA compliance and other safety projects in historic districts  Road resurfacing  In-kind replacement of roads  Connected vehicle technology installation  Signage  Roadside safety systems  Lighting and ITS  Bridge maintenance (painting, patching)  Traffic signal upgrade (repair and replacement)  Bicycle, bus, and pedestrian facilities and bus shelters  Autonomous vehicle infrastructure within existing ROW  In-kind replacement of modern materials (i.e., concrete sidewalks, curbs) It should be noted that several respondents questioned the value of having a program alternative that dealt with transportation projects and actions, since most state DOTs already have a Section 106 delegation PA listing projects and actions that are exempt from further Section 106 review. It was noted that each state should deal with this individually because of the regional differences and contexts. 7. In terms of these classes of projects, what type of program alternative would be most appropriate? Please briefly explain your answer. State DOT respondents noted that exempted categories would be the best tool; however, as discussed above, several questioned the value of developing a project/action-based program alternative given the existence of so many state-specific delegation PAs. 8. Do you have any other recommendations for a program alternative that would further streamline Section 106 consultation for transportation projects? The only additional suggestion was a program alternative for the non-collection of artifacts from archaeological sites. Additional Questions on 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1)—No Potential to Cause Effects 9. Do you have a formal process for making findings of No Potential to Cause Effects, following 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1)? If you do, where is this formal process described? In a manual? In your Section 106 delegation programmatic agreement? Other location? The project team received a variety of responses to this question. Here is a sample: We do not consider these as a finding. Confuses others (e.g., engineers) if call it a finding (anyone who is not a Section 106 specialist). Our programmatic agreement provides guidance on use of this section of regulation but does not specify who makes this decision. These decisions are documented in the project file by the project team. We have a section for “screened undertakings” in the attachment to our programmatic agreement. These are classes of undertakings that may have the potential to affect

A-5 historic properties, but following appropriate screening, may be determined exempt from further Section 106 review because they ultimately have no potential to affect historic properties. We have a programmatic agreement that allows qualified staff to make effect determinations under Section 106. As a result, we do not have a formal process for no historic properties affected determinations. We do, however, document the effect determination as part of the overall environmental documentation under NEPA. We have a class of projects in our statewide Minor Projects Programmatic Agreement that have been determined to have No Potential to Cause Effects. As a state with no Section 106 programmatic agreement, we do utilize 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1) for resurface and striping projects as identified in our cultural resources manual. Two state DOT respondents noted they do not have a formal process for this section of the regulation. And one state DOT respondent would like to see more national guidance on this part of the regulation, since it can be interpreted in different ways. 10. If you have a formal process, did you develop this process in consultation with the SHPO and your FHWA division office? If you did, can you briefly describe this consultation effort? Those states that have a formal process developed them in consultation with the FHWA, ACHP, and SHPO. Those states that have an explicit list of actions that fall under this section of the regulation created the list during the development of their PA (and modified the list during any updates to their agreement). One state DOT respondent noted that the development of this list was “long and arduous” because the SHPO of this state does not like to “lose control” of projects or its ability to comment on them. 11. Does having a formal process for this Section 106 finding streamline Section 106 compliance, and if so, how has it streamlined Section 106 compliance? All the state DOT respondents to this question said that having a formal process did streamline compliance, especially in terms of reducing paperwork, reviews, and processing times. The formal process also reduces SHPO workloads. 12. If you do not have a formal process for making findings of No Potential to Cause Effects, following 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), is it because you have found no need for formalizing such findings? Please explain your answer. The following is a sample of the responses to this question from states that do not have a formal process: In our revisions to our PA, we are developing sets of conditions where, based upon the limited activities of the project and upon the kinds of historic resources likely to occur, a finding of No Potential to affect historic properties whether they are present or not, can be made and provided for comment along with sufficient documentation to support such a finding.

  A-6 We had tried to accomplish this in our first programmatic agreement, but we found that application of the idea on a project by project basis was too difficult based upon SHPO staff’s interpretation of the conditions established in the agreement due in part, to changes in personnel at SHPO. In addition, the consultant applications of the conditions became somewhat inconsistent over time. Most of the time the No Potential is a result of the use of our minor projects agreement in which we state that these project actions will result in No Historic Properties Affected. So we just document that on our normal Determination of Significance and Effect form and include it in the environmental submittal. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DIVISION OFFICES 1. Have you had personal experience in the implementation of the ACHP’s 2012 Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges? If so, see questions below: 1A. Did the use of this program comment streamline Section 106 compliance and project delivery, and if so, how? Similar to the state DOT responses to this question, some of the FHWA division office respondents noted that they did not use this program comment since their statewide historic bridge program already included these classes of bridges. The division office respondents that used this program comment noted that it did streamline Section 106 reviews, compared to their standard review process. 1B. Did the use of this program comment streamline compliance with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations, and if so, how? The division office respondents noted that this program alternative did streamline compliance with Section 4(f) after the Section 4(f) regulatory update. One respondent noted that it streamlined project development by eliminating the need to develop a Programmatic or Individual Section 4(f) Evaluation. This saved as much as several weeks or several months as there was no need for the state DOT or their consultants to develop the Section 4(f) documents, and no need for division reviews of programmatic evaluations (reviews typically require up to 10 working days) or the required 30-day reviews of Draft or Final Individual Section 4(f) Evaluations from FHWA legal or the U.S. Department of the Interior. 1C. Did you encounter any difficulties in using this program comment? If you did, please briefly describe these difficulties. No difficulties were encountered. One respondent noted that the lack of experience with the program comment made it a bit awkward at first in terms of knowing what sort of documentation was needed. 1D. Did you encounter any conflicts with the use of this program comment in terms of complying with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations? If you did, please briefly describe these conflicts. No conflicts were encountered.  

  A-7 2. Have you had personal experience in the implementation of the 2018 Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-of-Way? Only one of the division office respondents has used this program comment. 3. In terms of streamlining Section 106 compliance, are there other types of ubiquitous properties, such as historic roads, irrigation systems, and isolated and unassociated historical features (such as refuse dumps and scatters), that can be addressed through a program alternative? Please briefly explain your answer. [Note: we have a separate question about post-World War II housing, below.] The following is a list of the types of ubiquitous properties the division office respondents suggested for inclusion within a program alternative.  Irrigation systems  Historic roads  Abandoned rail corridors  Bridges actively used for transportation purposes (rail, car, pedestrian / bike)  Post-World War II commercial buildings 4. If there are types of ubiquitous properties that can be addressed through a program alternative, what type of program alternative would be most appropriate? Please briefly explain your answer. Similar to the state DOT respondents, the division office respondents suggested either a program comment or exempted categories. One division office stated that exempted categories would be good for post-World War II commercial buildings. One division office respondent noted that bridges actively used for transportation purposes (rail, car, pedestrian / bike) should be exempt from Section 106 or Section 4(f) reviews. Such reviews have become a legal paperwork exercise that does not add much if any value to historic preservation and require/add substantial time and resources to the project development process. This division office suggested exempt categories like what was done for the Interstate system. Interestingly, one division office suggested, although not directly Section 106-related, having a Section 4(f) Programmatic Evaluation for historic roads similar to the Programmatic Evaluation for historic bridges. 5. Would you recommend the development of a program comment or exempted category or other type of program alternative for post-World War II housing? Please briefly explain your answer. The responses to this question were mixed. Some of the division office respondents said that having such a program alternative would be good, whereas others said that it would not be practical for their state. There was a concern that implementing this type of program alternative might take too much work, time, and cost, and that their state PAs might be better tools for streamlining compliance associated with this property type. 6. In terms of streamlining Section 106 compliance, are there classes of projects that can be addressed through a program alternative, whereby these projects would be exempted from Section 106 review (i.e., an exempted category)? Examples might include certain types of pavement resurfacing, restoration, and replacement projects; in-kind replacement of roadway and streetscape features; certain types of bridge maintenance and repairs; certain types of roadway

  A-8 monitoring and surveillance facilities; or vegetation control activities. Please briefly explain your answer. The following are the types of actions FHWA respondents identified for inclusion in a program alternative.  Projects processed under the TAP program  Replacing or installing ADA-compliant curb cuts at street corners adjacent to historic buildings One division office respondent stated that their Section 106 delegation PA already dealt with these types of actions, so a national program alternative would not be useful. 7. In terms of these classes of projects, what type of program alternative would be most appropriate? Please briefly explain your answer. The division office respondents did not respond to this question. 8. Do you have any other recommendations for a program alternative that would further streamline Section 106 consultation for transportation projects? The division office respondents did not have any additional suggestions. One respondent, however, noted that 36 CFR 800 and related requirements and/or guidelines need to be substantially overhauled/revised so that only properties that are truly historically significant and retain integrity need to undergo Section 106 reviews. The criteria for evaluating NRHP eligibility needs to be substantially tightened so that not everything over 50 years old can be considered eligible and/or contributing elements of a historic resource that is eligible. This division office respondent stated that they spend an excessive amount of time and effort on Section 106 compliance in their state as compared to most other environmental resources and requirements. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICES 1. Have you had personal experience in the implementation of the ACHP’s 2012 Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges? If so, see questions below: One SHPO noted that its state DOT has an active historic bridge program (PA with the SHPO and FHWA) dating back to the 1990s. By early 2000s the corresponding state DOT had already inventoried and evaluated post-1945 bridges; developing a statewide context for the state’s highway bridges. The SHPO noted that the state DOT’s bridge program is extremely efficient as a planning tool as well as a preservation tool. Significant bridges are identified early, and the DOT takes steps to ensure their protection and preservation. 1A. Did the use of this program comment streamline Section 106 compliance and project delivery, and if so, how? One SHPO responded that the program comment had not yet realized any streamlining in its state; it has limited experience with the program comment. Another SHPO responded that language from the program comment was inserted into its existing PA with the state DOT. It noted that much of its success in working with the state DOT, and in efforts to streamline processes, has come through coordination and interagency cooperation, such as working together to develop a context study for highway bridges built between 1959 and 1968. This SHPO is currently developing a system to better plan for the preservation,

  A-9 rehabilitation, or replacement of previously identified historic bridges to further streamline the review process. This SHPO also noted these efficiencies have been realized largely outside the ACHP Program Comment, rather than because of it. Four SHPOs stated that the program comment has been used and has helped with streamlining efforts. Two respondents noted they are no longer expending resources reviewing the replacement of common box culverts and concrete slab bridges and that using the program comment has reduced the overall amount of materials that required SHPO review. The fourth respondent stated that after the publication of the program comment, its office and the state DOT, along with other stakeholders (e.g., the Historic Bridge Foundation and others identified through a public involvement campaign), evaluated historic-age bridges for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. A total of 96 bridges statewide were determined eligible. Treatment measures for those bridges were formalized in a PA executed in 2017 between the agencies and the ACHP. The program comment and the PA evaluation of historic-age bridges eliminate the need to individually evaluate an individual bridge for a specific project. 1B. Did the use of this program comment streamline compliance with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations, and if so, how? One SHPO noted that there were no changes in any of these other processes. Another SHPO stated it assumed the program comment helped but that would be a question for the state DOT. A third SHPO said the program comment and its PA for such bridges have not had much direct impact on the Section 4(f) process. Even projects affecting bridges that require no Section 106 mitigation under the agreement are still required to conduct a Section 4(f) evaluation. The program comment, PA, and statewide bridge surveys do provide supporting documentation for the Section 4(f) evaluation, and the bridge Programmatic Evaluation is used, but the process is otherwise the same as that for pre-1945 historic bridges. 1C. Did you encounter any difficulties in using this program comment? If you did, please briefly describe these difficulties. Four SHPOs said that they have not had any difficulties using the program comment. One of these SHPOs noted that its state DOT made sure the program comment was applied appropriately, allowing the SHPO compliance time to focus on other kinds of projects. A fifth SHPO said its statewide bridge evaluations and state-level PA are what it relies on most, rather than the program comment itself, and therefore it would not have encountered any difficulties. 1D. Did you encounter any conflicts with the use of this program comment in terms of complying with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations? If you did, please briefly describe these conflicts. Five SHPOs said that they have not had any conflicts with other regulations in using the program comment. Two SHPOs said that their state DOT does not use the program comment; the state DOT prefers to use their bridge PA and existing survey data. 2. Have you had personal experience in the implementation of the 2018 Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-of-Way?

  A-10 Most SHPOs responded to this question, saying they had no experience at all with this program comment. Three SHPOs responded with some comments (below). 2A. Did the use of this program alternative streamline Section 106 compliance and project delivery, and if so, how? Three SHPOs said that it was difficult to judge the effectiveness of this program comment, as it does not include a provision for reporting or data dissemination that would assist SHPOs in tracking how many formerly reviewable projects have been exempted (or whether the exemptions are being properly applied), making it difficult to assess both the appropriateness and effectiveness of the program comment. 2B. Did the use of this program alternative streamline compliance with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations, and if so, how? One SHPO noted that it was unaware of any federal undertakings in its state that were exempted from Section 106 under the rail program comment but still subject to Section 4(f). 2C. Did you encounter any difficulties in using this program alternative? If you did, please briefly describe these difficulties. One SHPO said that it had major concerns about the implementation of the rail program comment and the potential for adverse effects to historic properties, which were expressed to the Federal Railroad Administration. But because of program comment’s lack of notification or reporting requirements, the SHPO has not directly experienced difficulties using the program comment. 2D. Did you encounter any conflicts with the use of this program alternative in terms of complying with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations? If you did, please briefly describe these conflicts. One SHPO responded that it and its state DOT partner both participated in webinars on the program comment. This SHPO finds the program comment hard to use, as there is not enough guidance out yet on how to use the program comment. Another SHPO said it anticipates there will be conflicts between the program comment (which exempts many potential “National Register-eligible” properties from review) and Section 4(f) (which does not). Without a reporting requirement, however, SHPOs may never become aware that such conflicts exist. It is not clear whether SHPOs will have an opportunity or outlet to address such conflicts when they occur. 3. In terms of streamlining Section 106 compliance, are there other types of ubiquitous properties, such as historic roads, irrigation systems, and isolated and unassociated historical features (such as refuse dumps and scatters), that can be addressed through a program alternative? Please briefly explain your answer. [Note: we have a separate question about post-World War II housing, below.] The following are a sample of the types of actions SHPOs identified for inclusion in a program alternative. As can be seen below, and as with the lists above from state DOT and FHWA division office respondents, many of these are linear historic features and structures.  Historic trails (need either a program comment or some other guidance)  Dumps and can scatters  Scatters  Motor vehicles

  A-11  Farm equipment  Canal systems (transportation canals)  Abandoned roads  Irrigation systems  Airports One SHPO stated that ubiquitous properties would be best handled at the state level because from region to region in its state, there will be different levels of importance. From state to state, this will be even more pronounced. This SHPO believes trying to do this on a national level would be difficult and daunting. It would prefer to handle these types of properties at the state level. Another SHPO commented that nothing in the NRHP criteria lends credence to the idea that an entire category of resources may be dismissed wholesale if it is deemed by some (without research or data) to be “ubiquitous.” Roads, ditches, refuse dumps, and trash scatters all have the potential to be historic properties, either on their own or as a contributing resource to a district or landscape. This is particularly true in Western states, where roads were carved through treacherous terrain to provide a lifeline to mining communities and where irrigation systems often made the difference as to whether a new settlement thrived or became a ghost town. This effort poses potential risk to effective district or landscape-level management. Depending on the type of program alternative and the language of the alternative, it is hard to say if properties such as these could be addressed through a program alternative without knowing more about how unrecorded segments of such properties, or ancillary features of these properties, might be handled in the program alternative. 4. If there are types of ubiquitous properties that can be addressed through a program alternative, what type of program alternative would be most appropriate? Please briefly explain your answer. Four SHPOs stated that a program comment may be useful for refuse dumps, refuse scatters, power transmission lines, irrigation districts, and airports. Any such approaches on these property types would have to set up parameters for what is covered under the comment and what would require further evaluation, specifying certain types of activities/projects to be screened and/or guidance on what kinds of activities constitute an undertaking. One SHPO replied that “ubiquitous” assumes an inherent lack of historical value, an assumption that it is reluctant to accept in the absence of academic research and discussion. This is particularly true when attempting to apply such a term to the entirety of the United States. As an example, roads are ubiquitous in that they exist, and take people from one place to another; however, the engineering challenges inherent in each location, differing from state to state, plus the roles they played in settlement and development, along with their scenic values and many other factors, serve to resist any effort to paint them all with the same brush. 5. Would you recommend the development of a program comment or exempted category or other type of program alternative for post-World War II housing? Please briefly explain your answer. One SHPO said that it probably would not recommend a program comment or exempted categories for post-World War II housing because there are a number of different architectural styles that represent this category, such as Minimal Traditional, Transitional Ranch, Contemporary, and Quonset hut. It has found that even a common type of property can be eligible for listing in the NRHP for reasons other than its architectural merit, and it would not want to see a locally significant property be categorically excluded from consideration because it was a member of a ubiquitous type. Another SHPO responded with a clear

  A-12 “no” to this question because it has handled this through workshops and trainings for the preservation professionals who work in the state. Another SHPO noted that in its state, the general thinking on this subject is a mixed bag. Some people are in favor of such an approach, but some do not favor it at all, believing that some properties might be overlooked if this were done via a program comment or as a broad exemption. One SHPO responded that World War II ended 74 years ago and although it may have made sense at one point to consider 1945 as a useful “cutoff point” between historic and non-historic resources, that time has long passed. Postwar suburban developments are as much of a part of our shared history as Victorian “garden suburbs,” historic downtown cores, and small-town Main Streets. In this state the SHPO and state DOT have worked together with historians to develop context studies for resources like postwar subdivisions, which allow faster survey of resources within an area of potential effect, faster reviews by the SHPO, and greater project certainty for the state DOT and its partners. They believe that this streamlining has been extremely effective because it allows the idea that a postwar subdivision (or a particular building therein) may be NRHP eligible. Regardless of the final determination, all parties were able to make a decision based on the best of evidence rather than on assumptions. One SHPO respondent replied with a clear “yes” to this question. They believe that it would be beneficial to develop this for the ubiquitous modern-era housing since they spend a great deal of time reviewing these types of properties, specifically mobile homes, 1960s tract houses, and the like. Another SHPO responded this way: Perhaps either a PA or an exempted activities list would be the most useful for dealing with post-World War II housing. A PA could standardize the consultation process and set expectations for an appropriate level of effort to identify and evaluate neighborhoods and individual properties. The military housing program comments (Department of Defense) are successful because they are standard plans across the country and all were built within a similar context. In contrast, the historic context for civilian neighborhoods across the country, and even across the state, is going to vary more widely. A PA could be useful in outlining a process to be followed at the state level, to develop the proper historic context, conduct an appropriate level of survey work, and consult with local stakeholders. 6. In terms of streamlining Section 106 compliance, are there classes of projects that can be addressed through a program alternative, whereby these projects would be exempted from Section 106 review (i.e., an exempted category)? Examples might include certain types of pavement resurfacing, restoration, and replacement projects; in-kind replacement of roadway and streetscape features; certain types of bridge maintenance and repairs; certain types of roadway monitoring and surveillance facilities; or vegetation control activities. Please briefly explain your answer. Below are project examples that some SHPOs believed could be considered as exempted actions for inclusion in a program alternative.  Mill and overlay with no additional groundwork  Lighting  Pavement marking  In-kind replacements (e.g., materials, fencing, landscape features)  Deck replacement  Resurfacing  Mowing

  A-13  Mobile signage  Replacement of signs on existing posts  Temporary traffic counters  Temporary traffic signals  Pothole filling, crack sealing, joint repair, pavement grooving  Installation of sensors/markers/rumble strips in existing pavement Several SHPOs said they have a Section 106 PA that establishes streamlined reviews for routine transportation maintenance/projects, commonly referred to as exempt actions list in their agreements. In general, their offices recommend the use of agreements for these actions as they help to address state and local significance of resources, and they can be tailored to address relevant and needed statewide programs. The types of work needed to maintain bridges, roadways, and streetscape features and adjacent vegetation will vary from state to state (and from climate to climate), as will the level of available funding, predicted traffic/population increases or decreases, etc. One thought is that PAs can be easily amended and modified as needs dictate—something that is much less likely to happen in the case of a program alternative. One SHPO noted that 36 CFR § 800.3(a)(1) already addresses this issue. Any agency could develop an internal list of project types that they exempt from Section 106 compliance. Another SHPO said that a number of activities that involve only changes to the road surface could be addressed through a program alternative, provided (1) the roads in question are not historic properties in and of themselves and are not located within a historic district, and (2) the proposed activity does not require material processing sites, stockpile sites, storage areas, plant sites, or waste sites. 7. In terms of these classes of projects, what type of program alternative would be most appropriate? Please briefly explain your answer. Two SHPOs noted that an exempted categories would work for some classes of projects (e.g., paving and in-kind replacement). Another SHPO said a program comment would be the best type of program alternative. Three SHPOs reiterated that the best mechanism for achieving streamlining is through the development of PAs between SHPOs and state DOTs. 8. Do you have any other recommendations for a program alternative that would further streamline Section 106 consultation for transportation projects? Two SHPO highlighted the need for guidance on trails. There are many historic trails that run along, across, and under existing infrastructure. There are also trail programs funded by FHWA that would benefit from streamlining Section 106 reviews. One SHPO said that any type of process that allows more open and transparent sharing of information would be useful. The heart of Section 106 is consultation, so any program that is developed should focus on streamlining this process.

  A-14 CONSULTANTS 1. Have you had personal experience in the implementation of the ACHP’s 2012 Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges? If so: 1A. Did the use of this program comment streamline Section 106 compliance and project delivery, and if so, how? One consultant noted that the program comment eliminated many bridges from needing consideration under Section 106. Another consultant observed that the program comment was marginally useful as their state DOT already has a bridge survey covering bridges up through 1956. The program comment, however, set the stage for a discussion of bridges built between 1956 and 1980, where there is a research gap. 1B. Did the use of this program comment streamline compliance with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations, and if so, how? One consultant said that after the most recent regulatory change in 23 CFR 774, the program comment did streamline Section 4(f) compliance. The other consultant did not have experience with projects that involved Section 4(f). 1C. Did you encounter any difficulties in using this program comment? If you did, please briefly describe these difficulties. One consultant noted confusion with interpreting the program comment in the following areas.  It is unclear whether a steel box girder is a common type.  One state chose not to participate originally because they thought participation would limit their independent decision-making. They reconsidered and are now working on a response.  Different levels of effort are used by states to identify common bridges with exceptional significance. Clearer guidance could have made application more uniform.  Does a state revisit [a project] at some time to address the recent past, such as during an inventory update? For example, a number of states that participated in the program comment considered bridges through a certain timeframe and are not sure if they need to reevaluate as inventories are updated or time has elapsed. This consultant has done updates that focus on uncommon types, but states also want certainty on all bridges, resulting in requests to assign “not eligible” determinations. The second consultant said no difficulties were encountered. 1D. Did you encounter any conflicts with the use of this program comment in terms of complying with Section 4(f) or any other environmental laws and regulations? If you did, please briefly describe these conflicts. No conflicts were encountered by either consultant. 2. Have you had personal experience in the implementation of the 2018 Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-of-Way? If so: Neither consultant had experience with this program comment.

  A-15 3. In terms of streamlining Section 106 compliance, are there other types of ubiquitous properties, such as historic roads, irrigation systems, and unassociated historical features (such as refuse dumps and scatters), that can be addressed through a program alternative? [Note: we have a separate question about post-World War II housing and commercial properties, below.] One consultant noted that it is difficult to see how states would efficiently apply an exemption that required them to identify roads with significance. States are inconsistent as to whether they consider roads as potential historic properties. Also, historic roads vary considerably (e.g., era, integrity, engineered). The consultant could see exempting classes of work, such as repaving, as being more effective. Then again, certain states would not consider applying Section 106 to repaving whereas others routinely do. The other consultant suggested a program treatment for contributing bridges within historic districts. 4. Would you recommend the development of a program comment or exempted action or other type of program alternative for post-World War II housing? Please briefly explain your answer. Based on experience developing the TRB research report for post-World War II housing, one consultant suggested the following:  Consider applying an exceptional significance standard to individual houses. For example, a given house must be associated with significant person or represent high style architecture.  Use NCHRP Report 723 guidance to help define “exceptional.”  Recognize that most significant housing will be represented as a historic district rather than individual houses.  Require eligible individual properties to have state or national significance (not local).  Require states to develop a postwar housing context to support decision-making. For example, it would establish the criteria for one district to be eligible over another district within the same metropolitan area or state. The second consultant did not respond to this question. 5. In terms of streamlining Section 106 compliance, are there classes of projects that can be addressed through a program alternative, whereby these projects would be exempted from Section 106 review (i.e., an exempted category)? Examples might include certain types of pavement resurfacing, restoration, and replacement projects; in-kind replacement of roadway and streetscape features; certain types of bridge maintenance and repairs; certain types of roadway monitoring and surveillance facilities; or vegetation control activities. Please briefly explain your answer. One consultant suggested the following.  Certain bridge maintenance and repair  Repaving  Signage  Reversible streetscaping (e.g., benches)  Painting  Installing ADA curbs  Paving of existing shoulders  Installation of ITS

A-16 6. Do you have any other recommendations for a program alternative that would further streamline Section 106 consultation for transportation projects? The two consultants made the following suggestions.  Postwar commercial properties that are single, isolated examples should also be exempt.  Consider requiring state or national significance for postwar commercial to be eligible.  Local road networks.  Bridges that contribute to historic districts (and are not individually NRHP eligible) but also require use of some of that historic district beyond the bridge itself.  Program comment on ADA-related project activities and how they can be incorporated into projects with minimal impacts and in a less regulatory way.