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 arrowFHWA arrowSection 106 Case Studies

Section 106

Each year thousands of federal-aid highway projects undergo Section 106 review. As with other federal agencies, the vast majority of undertakings are routine and are resolved at the state level without the ACHP’s involvement. However, some cases present complex issues or procedural challenges that warrant the participation of the ACHP.

Community outreach for proposed redevelopment of the St Elizabeths East Campus in Washington DCís Ward 8.Community outreach for proposed redevelopment of the St Elizabeths East Campus in Washington DCís Ward 8.

When the ACHP participates in consultation to resolve adverse effects the executive director becomes a signatory to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the undertaking. An MOA details the measures that will be carried out to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the effects of the federal undertaking, and the party responsible for completing each required task. If the effects of an undertaking on historic properties cannot be fully determined at the time Section 106 is concluded, a PA may be used to detail a process for completing the historic preservation review within a timeframe negotiated by consulting parties. An MOA or PA documents the agreement reached among the FHWA, State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), State Department of Transportation, and the ACHP, and concludes the Section 106 process. Additional consulting parties, including Indian tribes, other federal and state agencies with jurisdiction, local governments, and others may be invited to be signatories or to indicate their agreement with the resolution of adverse effects by signing as concurring parties.

Recently Concluded Section 106 Cases with ACHP Involvement

  • Colorado: MOA Executed for Improvements to US Highway 160 between Durango and Bayfield (Case Digest Summer 2012)
  • Hawaii:  MOA for Kuhio Highway resolves project’s effects on Wailua River TCP Historic District (2013)
  • Indiana:  Tier 2 MOA for Section 5, Interstate 69 in Monroe County, Focused on Protecting Historic Limestone Quarries from Impacts (2013)
  • New York:  Tappan Zee Hudson River Bridge Project (Case Digest Summer 2012)
  • North Carolina:  Herbert C. Bonner Bridge Programmatic Agreement amended to protect Sea Turtles from automobile headlights. (2013)
  • Pennsylvania: After Mistaken Bridge Demolition, FHWA and PennDOT Commit to Rehabilitate Marsh Road Bridge and to Funding for Historic Quaker Bridge in Crawford County.
  • Wisconsin: Historic Bosch Hotel and Tavern To be Moved To Make Room for Highway Reconstruction in the Village of Hales Corners (2014).
  • Wisconsin:  Taliesin National Historic Landmark. Context Sensitive Safety Improvements on STH 23 near Spring Green

Additional Case Studies previously published by the ACHP may be found on the ACHP website in the Case Digest archives.

Updated August 19, 2014

Return to Top