Home Historic Preservation Programs & Officers Federal FHWA

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. The ACHP reports on a cross-section of the cases in which it participates in its quarterly Case Digest (www.achp.gov/casedigest.html). FHWA projects recently reported in the Case Digest include the following:

• New Interchange for Route 250 Bypass and Extension of McIntire Road in Charlottesville (Fall 2009)
• Preserving Indiana’s Historic Bridges (Spring 2009)
• Suicide Barriers Proposed on Two Prominent California Bridges
  (Winter 2009)
  (Summer 2009)
• I-65 to US 31 West Connector Highway, Kentucky (Fall 2008) (Summer 2009)
• Monocacy Battlefield National Historic Landmark Highway Impacts, Maryland (Fall 2008)
• Programmatic Agreement at Knik Arm, Alaska (Summer 2008)
• Programmatic Agreement for I-70 Corridor, Colorado (Summer 2008)

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 Cases

In addition to the list of FHWA undertakings listed in the ACHP’s Case Digest, the ACHP participated in the development of MOAs and PAs for the following Section 106 cases. Should you have an interest in reviewing any of these MOAs and PAs, they can be obtained by contacting the ACHP or FHWA.

• California: Bridge District and Caltrans Propose Suicide Net on the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco
• Kentucky: Addressing Induced Development from Construction of the Warren County I-65 to US 31 West Connector Highway
• Missouri: Statewide Programmatic Agreement for Minor Projects
• Colorado: Standard Treatment for the Mitigation of Rockfall Hazards in the Georgetown-Silver Plume NHL District
• California: Cold Spring Canyon Bridge Suicide Barrier Project
• Minnesota: Effects of Highway Reconstruction on the John Cummins Farmhouse and the Goodrich-Ramus Dairy Barn
• Colorado: Increasing Traffic Capacity through historic mining towns on the Interstate 70 Mountain Corridor
• District of Columbia: Reconstruction of O and P Streets in the Georgetown National Historic Landmark District

Updated December 2, 2009

Return to Top