Environmental Review Toolkit
Historic Preservation

Streamlining Recommendations

Statewide Section 106 Programmatic Agreements (PAs)

Statewide Section 106 programmatic agreements (PAs) and related agreement documents are one way that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) can improve decisionmaking and advance environmental streamlining. PAs can administratively delegate some responsibility for Section 106 to the State DOTs, provide expedited timeframes in specified situations, and/or identify activities that have little or no potential to affect historic properties. Several are listed below as examples for States who may be seeking to implement similar kinds of agreement documents. The Section 106 PAs in Effect by State table provides summary information about current Section 106 PAs. To view more PAs related to Section 106 and other historic preservation areas, visit the State Streamlining Practices Database.

Example State PAs and Related Agreement Documents


ACHP Guidance on Section 106 Agreement Documents (GAD)

Planning and Environmental Linkages for Historic Preservation

The FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review has developed a report and series of best practices focusing on historic resources to support the goals of the Every Day Counts (EDC) initiatives under Planning and Environmental Linkages. The FHWA and State and local transportation agencies are working hard to deliver projects more quickly and efficiently, and for less cost. One way to achieve these efficiencies is to streamline compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The streamlining practices identified in the report and detailed in the case studies also have the benefit of improving stewardship through early consideration of historic preservation factors in planning and project development. Both the report and a series of case studies that highlight effective practices are available below.

Planning and Environmental Linkages for Historic Preservation Report: HTML   PDF (1.26 MB)

Agency Case Study
Programmatic Agreements
Colorado Department of Transportation (DOT) I-70 Mountain Corridor Project Programmatic Agreement
North Dakota DOT Tribal Consultation Programmatic Agreement
Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) Section 106 Delegation Programmatic Agreements
Staff Liaison Programs
California DOT (Caltrans) State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Staff Liaison Program
Ohio DOT (ODOT) SHPO Liaison Program
New Mexico DOT (NMDOT) Tribal Liaison Program
Archaeological Predictive Modeling
Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) MnModel - Archaeological Site Predictive Model
North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) Archaeological Predictive Model/GIS
Historic Bridges Management Program
Indiana DOT (INDOT) Historic Bridges Management Program
Ohio DOT (ODOT) Buckeye Assets Web Site
Rights-of-Way Databases/Portals
Arizona DOT (ADOT) Historic Preservation Team (HPT) Portal
California DOT (Caltrans) Cultural Resources Right-of-Way Database
Internal Project Development Database
Virginia DOT (VDOT) Comprehensive Environmental Data and Reporting System (CEDAR)
On-Line Section 106 Consulting Parties Identification and Communication Tool
Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) ProjectPATH (Project for Pennsylvania Transportation and Heritage)
Digital Screening Tool and Decision-Making Process
Colorado DOT (CDOT) Planning and Environmental Linkage Program
Florida DOT (FDOT) Efficient Transportation Decision-Making (ETDM) Process
Local Government Databases and Transportation Planning Tools
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) of Texas Long-Range Regional Plan

Interstate Highway System Exemption

The vast majority of the Interstate Highway System is exempt from consideration as an historic resource under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act requirements. Certain elements of the Interstate that have been deemed exceptional under National Register criteria have been compiled on a comprehensive, state by state list and must still be considered through the normal historic preservation review process. View the complete list of exceptional elements of the Interstate System, and view the Exemption published in the Federal Register, Exemption Regarding Historic Preservation Review Process for Effects to the Interstate Highway System. Interstate projects must still take into account any potential to affect historic resources other than the Interstate System itself.

Visit the May 2005 issue of Successes in Stewardship for more information.

SAFETEA-LU Section 6002(i)

Section 6002(j) of SAFETEA-LU allows for FHWA to approve funding to federal and state agencies and Indian Tribes to support activities that contribute to expediting and improving transportation project planning and delivery. On September 18, 2002, the White House issued Executive Order 13274, Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews, to further the goals of environmental streamlining.

SAFETEA-LU Section 6009

Section 6009 of SAFETEA-LU amends Section 4(f) legislation to simplify the processing and approval of projects that have only de minimis impacts to lands protected by Section 4(f). The de minimis impact criteria differ for historic sites than for parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges. Please refer to the Section 4(f) Policy Paper and the new Section 4(f) regulation at: 23 CFR 774.

For questions or feedback on this subject matter content, please contact David Clarke.

HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000