skip general nav links ACHP home About ACHP

ACHP News

National Historic
Preservation
Program


Working with
Section 106


Federal, State, & Tribal Programs

Training & Education

Publications

Search
 skip specific nav links
Home arrow Historic Preservation Programs & Officers arrow Federal arrow FHWA

FHWA/ACHP Partnership for Research and Innovation

Meridian Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Yankton, South Dakota Meridian Bridge Rehabilitation Project, Yankton, South Dakota 

What’s New?

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and Section 106  
On Friday, December 4, 2015 President Obama signed the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act into law, which provides funding and authorizes the nation’s transportation programs and policy for the next five years. The ACHP is currently working with the U.S. Department of Transportation to determine how to address several sections of the FAST Act that relate directly to historic properties and will provide forthcoming guidance in the following months.
For additional information, please visit:

ACHP Section 106 Tools and Guidance  
1. ACHP e106 information
If your agency would like to submit an adverse effect notification to the ACHP, invite the ACHP to participate in Section 106 consultation, or propose to develop a project Programmatic Agreement for complex or multiple undertakings, your agency can now notify the ACHP by using our electronic Section 106 documentation submittal system.  Please click on the link to learn more.

2. FHWA Template Statewide Programmatic Agreement for the Federal-Aid Highway Program
This template can be used to help assist FHWA and State DOT agencies in developing a statewide Programmatic Agreement for the Federal-Aid Highway Program.

3. ACHP’s Guidance on Agreement Documents (GAD)
If your agency has determined that there will be adverse effects to a historic property(ies), or would like to address a series of undertakings where the effects are not known to historic properties, then the ACHP’s GAD will assist your agency in concluding the Section 106 process when a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement is needed.  

4. NEPA and NHPA:  A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and Section 106
Developed by the ACHP and the Council on Environmental Quality, this handbook provides guidance to environmental and historic preservation practitioners to coordinate NEPA and Section 106 to improve environmental reviews.

5. Consultation with Indian Tribes in the Section 106 Review Process: A handbook
The ACHP developed this handbook to assist federal agencies with Section 106 tribal consultation. The handbook provides information regarding consultation on and off tribal lands, as well as, tips for successful consultation.    

6. Consultation with Native Hawaiian organizations in the Section 106 Review Process: A handbook
The ACHP developed this handbook to assist federal agencies in Hawaii with Section 106 Native Hawaiian organization consultation.

7. FHWA’s Section 4(f) Interactive Tutorial
This interactive tutorial is designed to help transportation professionals and other interested individuals understand the fundamental requirements of Section 4(f).

8. FHWA Webinar: Planning and Environmental Linkages for Historic Preservation
Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) represents a collaborative and integrated approach to transportation decision-making that 1) considers environmental, community, and economic goals, including historic preservation, early in the transportation planning process, and 2) uses the information, analysis, and products developed during planning to inform the environmental review process.

9. ACHP Program Comment for Post-1945 Concrete and Steel Bridges
In 2012, the ACHP has issued a Program Comment that eliminates historic review requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the repair or replacement of common post-1945 concrete and steel bridges, if appropriate measures in the State DOT and FHWA are undertaken.

10. ACHP Interstate Highway Exemption
In 2005, the ACHP issued the Interstate Highway Exemption, which relieves Federal agencies from the requirement of taking into account the effects of their undertakings on the Interstate Highway System, except with regard to certain individual elements or structures that are part of the system.

11. ACHP FHWA Programmatic Agreement Checklist
Developed by the ACHP and used by staff, this checklist can be utilized by those developing and/or reviewing Section 106 agreement documents.

12. Local Governments and Section 106
Developed by the ACHP, this Q&A is targeted towards local governments who may be project applicants for local transportation projects which are federally funded or for local governments who have jurisdiction for a federally funded transportation project is impacting. 

Section 106 Case Studies
Each year thousands of federal-aid highway projects undergo Section 106 review. As with other federal agencies, most projects are routine and are resolved at the state level, without the ACHP’s involvement. However, some projects present complex issues or procedural challenges that warrant the participation of the ACHP. View case studies of recent FHWA projects successfully resolved with ACHP participation.

Programmatic Agreements
I-70 Mountain Corridor, ColoradoI-70 Mountain Corridor, Colorado
The use of statewide Section 106 Programmatic Agreements (PAs) can save a state transportation agency significant time and money in completing the review of routine and non-controversial FHWA projects. The ACHP Template PA, the checklist for drafting a FHWA statewide PA and several model PAs are posted as examples for transportation officials and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) who would like to develop or update theirs statewide PAs. Read here for more information regarding the development of a PA for a FHWA program in your state.

Project specific Section 106 PAs may also be used to conclude Section 106 consultation and resolve adverse effects to historic properties on complex projects, multiple undertakings, or when the effects of an undertaking on historic properties cannot be determined prior to concluding Section 106 review.  Examples of project specific PAs include State Route 520 Widening and Bridge Replacement Project, Interstate 5 to Medina in Washington State and a PA that addresses the cumulative effects of rockfall mitigation on a National Historic Landmark in Colorado.

FHWA – ACHP Partnership
Since 2004, the FHWA has partnered with the ACHP to support research and innovation in coordinating Section 106 compliance with transportation planning and project development. The ACHP’s FHWA Program is managed by a full time senior staff member who serves as the FHWA Liaison and the principle point of contact for handling FHWA program and project review. The position is within the Office of Federal Agency Programs (OFAP) at the ACHP. In addition to assisting FHWA divisions in completing Section 106 review, the ACHP’s Liaison and Transportation Policy Team work with FHWA and the Department of Transportation on the development of legislation, regulations, and implementing guidance for programs with the potential to affect historic properties. The tangible results of the partnership between FHWA and the ACHP include the execution of over 40 statewide Programmatic Agreements (PAs) and amended PAs for streamlining Section 106 review; guidance and case studies included on this website; a nationwide exemption from review for the Interstate Highway System; a Program Comment that addresses Section 106 consideration for qualifying post-1945 common bridges; and the development and delivery of training in Section 106 and Native American consultation. 

ACHP Staff Points of Contact:
MaryAnn Naber, Senior Program Analyst/FHWA Liaison
Phone: 202-517-0218
Email: mnaber@achp.gov
Policy and Program Review

Christopher Wilson, Program Analyst
Phone: 202-517-0229
Email: cwilson@achp.gov
Section 106 Case Review

For More Information from our Preservation Partners:

 

Updated March 2, 2016

Return to Top