The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 19-34

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 19... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... A-2 the program comment does not cover bridges constructed postwar from September 2, 1945, to December 31, 1945. Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... 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) Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... 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? Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... A-8 monitoring and surveillance facilities; or vegetation control activities. Please briefly explain your answer. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... 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) Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... 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. Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... 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? Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... 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) Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... A-16 6. Do you have any other recommendations for a program alternative that would further streamline Section 106 consultation for transportation projects? Read the entire page →

From page 19...

... 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.