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 guidance issued for determining de minimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources.

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 from the States of Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, California, and Washington, which administratively delegate some responsibility for Section 106 to the State DOTs, are listed below as examples for states seeking to implement similar kinds of agreement documents. To view more PAs related to Section 106 and other historic preservation areas, visit the State Streamlining Practices Database.

Example State PAs

Both an Overview and a Detailed Summary of these seven featured State's PAs are available. In addition, links to the actual PAs are provided below.

The Programmatic Agreements - Overview and Summary

For questions or feedback on this subject matter content, please contact MaryAnn Naber. For general questions or web problems, please send feedback to the web administrator.