Prototype Programmatic Agreements

36 CFR § 800.14(b)(4)

The ACHP can designate an agreement document as a prototype that can be used for the same type of program or undertaking in more than one program or area. When a federal agency uses a prototype programmatic agreement, the agency may develop and execute the agreement with the appropriate SHPO/THPO without the need for the ACHP's participation in consultation or ACHP signature. 

Programmatic Agreements

36 CFR § 800.14(b)

Programmatic agreements are the most commonly used program alternative.  They allow federal agencies to govern the implementation of a particular agency program or the resolution of adverse effects from complex projects or multiple undertakings similar in nature through negotiation of an agreement between the agency, appropriate SHPO(s) /THPO(s), and the ACHP.  In certain circumstances, the ACHP may also designate a specific agency agreement as a prototype agreement

Alternate Procedures

36 CFR § 800.14(a)

Alternate procedures are a program alternative that allows federal agencies to streamline the Section 106 process by tailoring the process to the agency’s programs and decision-making process. Procedures, approved by the ACHP and adopted by the agency, substitute in whole or in part for the ACHP’s Section 106 regulations under Subpart B.

Section 106 Applicant Toolkit Checklist

This checklist accompanies the ACHP's Section 106 Applicant Toolkit, which provides information and guidance on the Section 106 process to parties who are the recipients of, or are applying for federal licenses, permits, assistance, or approvals.

Section 106 Implications for Properties on the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 11 Most Endangered List for 2019

The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s annual list of the 11 Most Endangered Historic Places was announced on May 30, highlighting historic properties that the organization believes are at risk of destruction or irreparable damage. At least three of the places on this year’s list involve Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s attention in resolving preservation issues.

30-Day Review Timeframes: When are They Applicable in Section 106 Review?

Introduction

In its role overseeing the Section 106 review process the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) works with a range of stakeholders to ensure that Section 106 reviews are carried out effectively and without unnecessary delay. In this capacity we occasionally receive inquiries regarding the time limits that govern consultation between lead federal agencies and others in the Section 106 review process.

NPS Nationwide PA for Compliance with Section 106

Programmatic Agreement Among the National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Update to Timeline for Effects To Historic District Due To Growler Expansion at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island

Due to the lapse in federal funding necessitating a partial government shutdown, the 45-day timeline for the ACHP to provide its final comments to the Secretary of the Navy regarding the Section 106 review for the proposed increase in the EA-18G Growler activity on Naval Air Station Whidbey Island was stopped on December 21, 2018. Consequently, the timeline began again on January 26, 2019 when the government was reopened. The new deadline for the ACHP to submit its comments is February 19, 2019.

Subscribe to Section 106