skip general nav links ACHP home About ACHP


National Historic

Working with
Section 106

Federal, State, & Tribal Programs

Training & Education


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

FHWA/ACHP Partnership for Research and Innovation

A Section 106 Success, Wilson’s Bridge in Carroll County, Indiana was rehabilitated with Federal funding in 2008 (courtesy of Paul Brandenburg).A Section 106 Success, Wilsonís Bridge in Carroll County, Indiana was rehabilitated with Federal funding in 2008 (courtesy of Paul Brandenburg).

What’s New?

In Virginia, the Buckland Historic District is bisected by US Highway 15/29In Virginia, the Buckland Historic District is bisected by US Highway 15/29

New Surface Transportation Bill (S. 2322) Approved by Senate Committee. 

Preservation stakeholders are concerned that the surface transportation reauthorization recently approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Pubic Works could weaken historic property protections by modifying Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Read More.

New ACHP Staff Assignments.  

Chris Wilson has joined the FHWA team and will be assisting with the review and participation in FHWA cases for states beginning with A through O. Najah Duvall Gabriel is continuing to handle her existing cases and new cases and notifications from FHWA for states beginning with the letters P through W.  As the FHWA Liaison, Carol will focus on FHWA statewide programmatic agreements, as well as policy and program improvements.  Contact information is provided at the bottom of this page.

Coordinating Section 106 with NEPA and other Federal requirements – New Tools available:

Program Comment for Common Post-1945 Bridges: The ACHP has issued a Program Comment that will eliminate 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.
Read more about this important development here
Read the Program Comment here.
State by State Lists of Exceptions and joint FHWA-ACHP Guidance

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 (STA) significant time and money in completing the review of routine and non-controversial FHWA projects. The ACHP checklist for drafting a FHWA statewide PA and several excellent PAs are posted as examples for transportation officials and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) working on new statewide PAs. Read here for more information on developing a PA for a FHWA program in your state. 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 February of 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 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 28 Programmatic Agreements (PAs) and amended PAs for streamlining Section 106 review since 2004; the guidance and case studies included on this website; a nationwide exemption from review for the Interstate Highway System; and the development and delivery of training in Section 106 and Native American consultation. 

ACHP Staff Points of Contact:

Najah Duvall Gabriel
Phone:  202-517-0210
Section 106 Case Review  

Carol Legard, FHWA Liaison
Phone: 202-517-0218
Policy and Program Review

Chris Wilson
Phone: 202-517-0229
Section 106 Case Review

FHWA’s Historic Preservation and Archaeology Program
Interstate Highway Exemption
Local Governments and Section 106
Programmatic Agreements
Program Comment on Post-1945 Common Bridges
Section 106 Cases Recently Concluded:  Case Studies, Best Practices, Lessons Learned  

For More Information from our Preservation Partners:


Updated July 25, 2014

Return to Top