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.
16 6.0 SUMMARY 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 The project team surveyed and interviewed staff at state DOTs, FHWA division offices, and SHPOs 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. The agencies in 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, however, did not see the value in using this program comment. Rather, they used their state-specific Section 106 delegation 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. 6.2 POTENTIAL PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES OF HIGH VALUE TO STATE DOTS AND FHWA PROJECTS One of the goals of this NCHRP study was to identify and rank potential program alternatives that would be of high value to state DOTs, based on the surveys and interviews discussed above. The surveys and interviews revealed support for two program alternatives: ï· A national program comment for post-World War II housing, similar to the program comment for post-1945 concrete and steel bridges. This program comment might 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. ï· A national exemption for minor classes of projects, including a broad range of routine roadway maintenance activities and actions outside NRHP-listed or eligible historic properties. This program alternative would be built on existing state delegation PAs that list project categories exempt from standard Section 106 review and consultation. In addition, survey respondents were clear that any new program alternative should be kept as simple as possible with no ambiguity in application. There was also support for some type of program alternative for linear resources, 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. A program alternative for linear resources should focus on a 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 outreach.
17 6.3 USE OF 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1) In terms of the national application by state DOTs of the âNo Potential to Cause Effectâ finding, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), the survey results and the analysis of the active delegation PAs demonstrate an inconsistent use of this first finding listed in the Section 106 regulation, and that state DOTs often use âfindingsâ that are variants of this formal Section 106 finding. The analysis of the 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 not clear at this time. Additional research is needed to further explore why state DOTs do not commonly use this Section 106 finding, and why, when it is used, there is such a wide variation in how this finding is applied.
