National Academies Press: OpenBook
Page i
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25722.
×
Page R1
Page ii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25722.
×
Page R2
Page iii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25722.
×
Page R3
Page iv
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25722.
×
Page R4
Page v
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25722.
×
Page R5
Page vi
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25722.
×
Page R6
Page vii
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25722.
×
Page R7

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.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 275: Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects National Streamlining Opportunities Paul Graham WSP USA Kansas City, MO Terry Klein SRI Foundation Rio Rancho, NM Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 25-25/Task 116 Submitted December 2019 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E  R E S E A R C H  P R O G R A M S  CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 275 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Ann M. Hartell, Senior Program Officer Jarrel McAfee, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications Kathleen Mion, Senior Editorial Assistant NCHRP PROJECT 25-25/Task 116 PANEL AREA TWENTY-FIVE: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING—HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Robert W. Hadlow, Oregon DOT, Portland, OR (Chair) Maureen Cavanaugh, The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc., Pawtucket, RI Lauren E. Cooper, Colorado DOT, Denver, CO Karen L. Daniels, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City, MO Antony F. Opperman, Virginia DOT, Richmond, VA Christina Slattery, Mead & Hunt, Inc., Middleton, WI David Clarke, FHWA Liaison Melissa A. Savage, AASHTO Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was conducted for the AASHTO Committee on Environment and Sustainability, with funding provided through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25/Task 116, “Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities.” The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 25-25 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the Committee on Environment and Sustainability. The report was prepared by Paul Graham, Louis Berger U.S., Inc. (a WSP Company) and Terry Klein, SRI Foundation.

v SUMMARY The federal regulation for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (i.e., 36 CFR 800) allows federal agencies to tailor the Section 106 review 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 36 CFR 800.3-6. These methods and approaches are referred to in the regulation under 800.14 as “program alternatives.” 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 compliance and project delivery efforts. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and FHWA have put in place two national program alternatives. One is an exemption implemented in 2005 (referred to as “exempted categories” in the Section 106 regulation) for the Interstate Highway System (2005), and the second is a program comment for common types of post-1945 concrete and steel bridges (2012) 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) (2018). The project team for this NCHRP study surveyed and interviewed state DOTs, FHWA division offices, and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) staff, as well as select consultants, about their experiences with the program comment for common types of post-1945 concrete and steel bridges, and the program comment involving rail properties within rail ROW. Those states that used the program comment for post-1945 concrete and steel bridges noted that the program comment did streamline Section 106 reviews. Some states, however, did not see the value in using this program comment. Rather, they used their state- specific Section 106 delegation programmatic agreements (PAs) or state-specific historic bridge PAs to address these classes of bridges. In terms of the rail program comment, few states had yet to use this relatively new program alternative. The few that did noted that its use did streamline Section 106 reviews, although some said the program comment was hard to apply. The surveys and interviews also asked 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. Respondents identified two program alternatives of high value to future transportation projects:  A national program comment for post-World War II housing, similar to the program comment for post-1945 concrete and steel bridges.  A national exemption for minor classes of projects, including a broad range of routine roadway maintenance activities and actions outside historic properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). There also was support for some type of program alternative for linear historic resources (e.g., roads, trails, abandoned railroads, irrigation systems), although there was no clear consensus on the type of program alternative or the type (or types) of linear resources to be covered by a program alternative. The project team suggests that if agencies are interested in pursuing a program alternative for linear resources, it should focus on the ubiquitous property type that is of greatest concern among state DOTs, SHPOs, and FHWA division offices. Determining which property type (or types) will require targeted, additional research and surveys of these agencies. The current NCHRP study also examined the national application by state DOTs of the “No Potential to Cause Effect” finding, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1). The survey results and the analysis of the active

vi state-specific Section 106 delegation PAs demonstrate an inconsistent use of this finding, and that state DOTs often use “findings” that are variants of this formal Section 106 finding. The analysis of active delegation PAs also shows that many state PAs do not include the use of this Section 106 finding. Why this is the case is unclear.

vii CONTENTS 1.0  INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 2.0  LEGAL AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES .......... 3 3.0  PROJECT APPROACH .......................................................................................................... 5 4.0  RESULTS OF SURVEYS, INTERVIEWS, AND RESEARCH ............................................ 6  4.1 Key Findings of Surveys and Interviews—Program Alternatives ................................. 6 4.1.1 Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges ........... 6 4.1.2 Program Comment to Exempt Considerations of Effects to Rail Properties Within Rail ROW ............................................................................................... 7 4.1.3 Possible Program Alternatives for Ubiquitous Properties .................................. 7 4.1.4 Possible Program Alternatives for Post-World War II Housing ......................... 9 4.1.5 Possible Program Alternatives for Classes of Minor Projects ............................ 10 4.1.6 Responses from Non-Transportation Agencies .................................................. 11 4.2 Key Findings of Surveys, Interviews, and Analysis of Delegation PAs—Application of 36 CFR 800.3(A)(1), “No Potential to Cause Effects” .............................................. 11 5.0  DEVELOPMENT OF POTENTIAL NEW NATIONAL PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES .... 14  5.1 Possible Program Comment for Post-World War II Housing ........................................ 14 5.2 Possible Exemption for Classes of Minor Projects ........................................................ 14 6.0  SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 16  6.1 Survey of Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges, and Program Comment to Exempt Considerations of Effects to Rail Properties Within Rail ROW ........................................................................................................... 16 6.2 Potential Program Alternatives of High Value to State DOTs and FHWA Projects ...... 16 6.3 Use of 36 CFR 800.3(A)(1) ............................................................................................ 17 7.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 18  APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS, AND SUMMARY OF SURVEY AND INTERVIEW RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................... A-1 State Departments of Transportation ....................................................................................... A-1 Federal Highway Administration Division Offices ................................................................. A-6 State Historic Preservation Offices .......................................................................................... A-8 Consultants ............................................................................................................................... A-14

viii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials NCHRP NEPA National Cooperative Highway Research Program National Environmental Policy Act ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation NRHP National Register of Historic Places ACRA American Cultural Resource Association PA Programmatic Agreement ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ROW right-of-way CRM Cultural resource management SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer DoD Department of Defense TAP Transportation Alternatives Program DOT Department of Transportation THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office FHWA Federal Highway Administration TRB Transportation Research Board ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems USDA United States Department of Agriculture MOU Memorandum of Understanding USDOT United States Department of Transportation

Next: 1.0 Introduction »
Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires transportation agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic resources when those undertakings are federally funded. Section 106 of the NHPA also allows for the use of Program Alternatives to tailor compliance, potentially streamlining Section 106 evaluations for commonly encountered categories of historic resources.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Web-Only Document 275: Potential Section 106 Exempted Categories or Program Comments for Federal Highway Administration Projects: National Streamlining Opportunities examines the use of Program Alternatives by state departments of transportation and explores potential opportunities for additional Program Alternatives.

There is also a presentation accompanying the report.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!