Improving the Efficiency and Consistency of Section 106 Compliance for State DOTs: Strategies for Project-Level Programmatic Agreements (2021) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 10-22
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 10... ...
10 California explicitly mentioned the 23 USC 327 MOU, and the Texas and California DOTs were the lead agencies with legal responsibility for Section 106 compliance. The remaining data points were reviewed and are discussed in the PA analysis section of this report, which includes summaries of these data points where relevant to illustrate how agencies are using these elements of project-level PAs.
|
From page 11... ...
11 Team members promoted the survey more broadly through social media outlets including blogs, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Specific social media posts included: • Mead & Hunt Insights (blog)
|
From page 12... ...
12 DOTs and SHPOs, representing the targeted Tier 1 agencies, provided the most input, with 35 and 20 respondents, respectively. Eleven respondents represented federal agencies, including six from FHWA and five other agencies.
|
From page 13... ...
13 Figure 7. Map illustrating the 33 states, including Washington, D.C., where the project team received PAs.
|
From page 14... ...
14 Figure 8. Survey responses indicating whether the agency has developed or signed a project-level PA.
|
From page 15... ...
15 Figure 9. Survey responses summarizing reasons why agencies do not develop project-level PAs.
|
From page 16... ...
16 Question #13. What is the typical length of time needed for the development and execution of a project-level PA?
|
From page 17... ...
17 One respondent summarized the various ways to coordinate, sequence, and time a project-level PA relative to the environmental process as described below. Other respondents described strategies for coordinating and involving multiple consulting parties relative to the environmental process for their project-level PAs.
|
From page 18... ...
18 include all contracting arrangements. Other arrangements are less frequently used, including P3 and CM/GC.
|
From page 19... ...
19 half (25) of respondents said they experience challenges with fulfillment, tracking and reporting, and overseeing the implementation of the project-level PA.
|
From page 20... ...
20 Two respondents noted the following regarding mitigation commitments: Questions #18 and #19. Did you experience any of the following after execution of the project-level PA?
|
From page 21... ...
21 Question #20. Can you provide any perspectives on what worked well during the process of developing and implementing a specific project-level PA or multiple PAs, such as unique or creative approaches or consultation strategies that were taken?
|
From page 22... ...
22 Question #21. Can you provide any perspectives on challenges not already discussed?
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.