The Section 106 process requires federal agencies to identify historic properties, take into account the effects of their undertakings on those properties and to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer, federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, other consulting parties and the public. The goal of consultation is to inform the identification of historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking in the Area of Potential Effects (APE), best understand effects of the undertaking on historic properties, and seek ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are the co-lead federal agencies for the IBR Program.

NEPA and Section 106 Coordination

While the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the NHPA are separate regulatory processes, federal guidance encourages coordination of these reviews, such that technical analyses prepared for one can then inform the other where appropriate. The IBR Program is coordinating the NEPA and Section 106 evaluations with FHWA and FTA as the federal co-leads, and both reviews are being taken into consideration as design progresses on the proposed Program activities.

The IBR Program held its first 30-day Section 106 public comment period from April 17 – May 18, 2023 to share the findings of the Historic Built Environment Survey Reports for Oregon and Washington. The purpose of this public comment period was to seek community input and feedback on all identified historic properties within the APE and determine which properties should advance to an intensive-level evaluation with preparation of Section 106 forms for individual properties.

The IBR Program held another 30-day Section 106 public comment period from October 18 – November 18, 2024 to seek community input and feedback on the Determination of Eligibility (DOE) and Finding of Effect (FOE) forms for potentially impacted historic properties. This 30-day Section 106 public comment period occurred concurrently with the 60-day NEPA public comment period on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).

The APE is the geographic area where the project actions may result in impacts to cultural resources.
SHPO is the State Historic Preservation Office.
THPO is the Tribal Historic Preservation Office.
NHO is the Native Hawaiian Organization.
ACHP is the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

On February 8, 2023, FHWA and FTA initiated Section 106 consultation with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), federally recognized tribes and other consulting parties for the IBR Program. This consultation included maps depicting the determination of the APE and initiated consultation on preparation of a Programmatic Agreement.

Consultation with invited Section 106 consulting parties has been substantial throughout the process to date. FHWA, FTA and the IBR Program host monthly all-party meetings as well as ongoing and ad hoc one-on-one meetings. Additionally, there have been more than 10 formal opportunities to provide comment on topics that have included: the APE boundary, identification of historic properties, assessment of effects, and initial considerations of mitigation measures.  

Public engagement began in April 2023 with a cultural resources online open house, which was advertised through IBR social media and the home page of the IBR Program website, email notifications to Program partners and community organizations, postcard mailing to addresses in the program vicinity, press release distribution, and promotion in the April 2023 IBR Program newsletter. In addition, IBR Program Cultural Resources staff participated in in-person neighborhood forums in May and June 2023 and have staffed virtual and in-person office hours to field questions from the public. Most recently, a public comment period on the Determination of Eligibility (DOE) and Finding of Effect (FOE) documents was held for 30-days between October 18, 2024 and November 18, 2024.

The IBR Program’s Modified Locally Preferred Alternative considers only a design that places light rail transit within and alongside the I-5 right-of-way. This differs from the previous Columbia River Crossing (CRC) project, which proposed a light rail alignment through Vancouver’s commercial core along Main Street. This project footprint change substantially reduces the number of historic properties within the IBR Program’s potential footprint and reduces its overall APE.

To identify historic properties within the APE, the IBR Program took the following steps:

• Review of all available CRC project materials relating to HBE resources, including the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) CRC archives and Oregon SHPO’s Oregon Historic Sites Database (OHSD) and Washington DAHP’s Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) database.
• Review of OHSD and WISAARD databases to identify properties that were listed in the National Register, previously determined eligible for listing in the National Register, previously documented but without a formal National Register eligibility determination, and previously determined not eligible for listing in the National Register.
• Review of National Archives and Records Administration’s searchable National Register database and a geospatial National Register database maintained by the National Park Service.
• Outreach to interested parties to request input regarding local historic properties that should be considered in the Section 106 process.
• Review of county tax lots and tax assessor data to identify HBE resources with construction dates before 1982. Although properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register are generally only those that have achieved significance over 50 years ago, for the purpose of this undertaking, IBR architectural historians identified resources with the potential to achieve significance at the time of the Modified LPA’s anticipated completion date in 2032 (i.e., those built 41 or more years ago). Where a property tax lot was partially within the APE, all resources with construction dates in or before 1982 within the boundary of the tax lot were identified for evaluation.
• Field survey to verify tax assessor data, identify undocumented resources with construction dates before 1982 that existing tax lot data did not capture, and identify resources that post-dated 1982 but may possess exceptional historic importance to qualify for National Register listing.

These efforts resulted in the identification of hundreds of HBE resources in Portland and Vancouver. Each identified resource has an IBR map identification number (Map ID) for use throughout the course of the undertaking.

Under direction of the IBR Cultural Resources Program Manager, architectural historians working on HBE historic property identification met professional qualifications standards set by the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) for architectural history pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(a)(1). Additionally, all fieldwork, background research and reporting were directly supervised by architectural historians actively registered under Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Qualified Cultural Resources Consultants (Historic) Program.

The IBR Program is currently working to identify archaeological resources within the APE. These efforts include:

• Reviewing previously conducted fieldwork to identify locations for additional study.
• Conducting outreach to federally recognized tribes and consulting parties.
• Conducting additional archaeological fieldwork in the program area.

Due to the sensitive nature of archaeological resources, findings from this work may not be made available to the public.

IBR Program architectural historians evaluated resources to assess their eligibility for listing in the National Register pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4(c).

This effort included two phases: preparation of reconnaissance-level Baseline Survey, and completion of intensive-level Determinations of Eligibility (DOE) forms. The IBR Program also assessed adverse effects to historic properties pursuant to Section 106 and the criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 800.4(d), 36 CFR 800.5). The effort to assess adverse effects included preparation of Finding of Effect (FOE) forms which is detailed in the next tab. The outcome of the work is summarized in a Historic Built Environment Technical Report.

Reconnaissance-Level Baseline Survey

The IBR Program evaluation of HBE resources began with separate Historic Built Environment Baseline Survey (Baseline Survey) Reports prepared for the Oregon and Washington segments of the APE. The Baseline Survey reports initially evaluated all identified resources at a reconnaissance level to recommend their potential for National Register eligibility using the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

To prepare the Baseline Surveys, the IBR Program took the following steps:

• Field survey sessions were conducted between June 2022 and December 2022, during which architectural historians visited and documented all identified HBE resources within the APE. Following a modification to the APE, additional fieldwork on the Ruby Junction portion of the APE was completed in September and October 2023. Architectural historians documented all resources with high-resolution digital photographs and electronically inventoried the resources for IBR Program records. This fieldwork allowed architectural historians to document any losses of historic fabric, integrity and alterations since construction.
• Background research was conducted on a variety of themes and geographic locations throughout the vicinity of the APE to provide sufficient historic context to evaluate the significance of HBE resources. Researchers consulted a wide variety of archives and archival sources, including written, illustrated, and photographic documentation. Because the IBR Program is evaluating resources with construction dates in or before 1982, architectural historians placed particular emphasis on study of the recent past, including the architectural styles and historical trends of the late twentieth century.
• Property-specific research was conducted for individual HBE resources. Where possible, researchers created lists of former inhabitants and tenants of historic resources and investigated each known occupant in search of potential “persons significant in our past.” Researchers also consulted historic tax photos, where available, as well as aerial imagery, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and real estate listings to assess changes to resources over time.

IBR Program architectural historians recommended some resources as not having the potential for eligibility because they lacked sufficient significance. Others were recommended as significant but, through incompatible alterations and other changes, were found to be not eligible because they no longer retained sufficient integrity to convey their significance. Where resources possessed significance and retained integrity, IBR recommended them as having the potential for eligibility in the National Register and included them for further study at the intensive level through preparation of DOE forms.

For properties with a DOE in either OHSD or WISAARD, architectural historians recommended either concurrence with the existing DOE or a revision. Architectural historians only recommended revisions in instances where they found a substantial change in a resource’s integrity since the original DOE, or where they believed the DOE overlooked or underrated a resource’s significance. All recommendations were reviewed by FHWA, FTA, ODOT, WSDOT, Oregon SHPO, Washington DAHP, consulting tribes, consulting parties and the public.

Intensive-Level Determinations of Eligibility Forms

Based on the findings of the reconnaissance-level Baseline Survey reports and comments provided by federal and state agency reviewers, consulting tribes, consulting parties and the public, 80 HBE resources underwent additional evaluation with intensive-level DOEs (36 CFR 800.4). These documents aimed to further evaluate the resource’s National Register eligibility through additional documentation and a full written discussion of a resource’s significance and integrity.

Resources that received additional study included:

• Previously undocumented properties recommended potentially eligible in the Baseline Surveys.
• Properties where Oregon SHPO or Washington DAHP made previous determinations more than 10 years prior (in or before 2013).
• Properties recommended as not eligible in the Baseline Surveys, but that would be fully or partially removed in the course of the undertaking.
• Resources with a recent DOE from SHPO or DAHP did not receive additional study but were advanced to assessment of effects in a subsequent phase of study.

To prepare the DOE forms, architectural historians carried out fieldwork and documentation for the DOEs over several field sessions between January 2023 and October 2023. In limited cases, resources were substantially altered by property owners after they were initially documented by architectural historians. In these cases, the resources were revisited and their new condition documented. Architectural historians documented all publicly visible resource elevations with high-resolution digital photographs, and where needed, recorded notes on the resource’s integrity or condition. Resources were considered to be in “excellent” condition when they were well maintained with no problems apparent; “good” condition when there were only minor problems apparent; “fair” condition when there were some, more substantial problems apparent; and “poor” when there were major problems apparent with the imminent threat of ruin. In a small number of cases, fieldwork required writing a letter to property owners in late April 2023 requesting a right of entry.

DOE forms include discussions of applicable National Register Criteria for Evaluation, applicable Criteria Considerations, a level of significance, an area or areas of significance, a period or periods of significance, a discussion of integrity and condition, and a discussion of a recommended National Register boundary. All DOEs were reviewed by FHWA, FTA, ODOT, WSDOT, SHPO, DAHP, consulting tribes and consulting parties.

Following completion of the DOEs, IBR Program architectural historians prepared Finding of Effect (FOE) forms to assess potential effects on historic properties from the undertaking pursuant to Section 106 and the criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 800.4(d), 36 CFR 800.5). As prescribed by Section 106, architectural historians assessed potential effects only on historic properties.

An adverse effect results when an undertaking:

“…may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of the historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.”

The Section 106 implementing regulations provide “examples of adverse effects,” which can include the following:

• Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property;
• Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation, and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary's standards for the treatment of historic properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines;
• Removal of the property from its historic location;
• Change of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance;
• Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features;
• Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and
• Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance.

Based on an assessment of effects on historic properties within the APE, the implementing regulations instruct the co-lead federal agencies (FHWA and FTA) to make either a finding of “no historic properties affected” (36 CFR 800.4(d)(1)), “no adverse effect” (36 CFR 800.5(b)), or “adverse effect” (36 CFR 800.5(d)(2)) for the undertaking. Potential effects that architectural historians evaluated include those described in 36 CFR 800.5: physical destruction and removal; alteration; change in use or setting; and the introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements. Effects including the neglect of a property and the transfer, lease, or sale of a property out of federal ownership or control are not anticipated for the IBR Program.

Activities proposed for the Modified LPA and its design options would result in adverse effects as defined under 36 CFR 800.5 to 12 historic properties. These properties include the following:

• OR 50/WA 381a: Interstate Bridge (northbound)
• OR 51/WA381b: Interstate Bridge (southbound)
• OR 107: Harbor Shops
• OR 109: Jantzen Beach Water Tank
• OR 111: Jantzen Beach Moorage
• WA 149: Normandy Apartments
• WA 369: Pearson Field Historic District
• WA 918: Officers Row Historic District
• WA 1192: Bridge Substation
• WA 1357: Vancouver National Historic Reserve Historic District
• WA 1358: Vancouver Barracks Historic District
• WA 1359: Fort Vancouver National Historic Site

As such, FHWA and FTA recommended a finding of “adverse effects to historic properties” for this undertaking with concurrence from Oregon SHPO and Washington DAHP, and in consultation with ODOT, WSDOT, federally recognized tribes and consulting parties.

Section 106 of the NHPA requires resolution of adverse effects, as described in 36 CFR Part 800.6. All avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures for historic properties will be implemented through a Programmatic Agreement (PA). Consultation to resolve adverse effects on historic properties under Section 106 is ongoing. Mitigation measures will be determined by FHWA and FTA in consultation with Oregon SHPO, Washington DAHP, federally recognized tribes, consulting parties and the public as part of the PA development process. The PA will include a Historic Built Environment Treatment Plan (Attachment C to the PA) that details how identified mitigation measures will be implemented, including specific approaches, processes and responsibilities for completion.

There is no prescribed formula for mitigation. Appropriate mitigation is project-specific and takes into consideration project impacts and the needs of the local community. Mitigation may include documenting historic properties before they are demolished; creating websites, displays, and brochures; archaeological investigations; holding public education events; or any number of other activities. Ultimately, the lead federal agencies identify appropriate mitigation based on input provided through consultation. While mitigation cannot fully compensate for the loss of historic properties, it provides an opportunity to preserve and document the past for the public’s education and appreciation.

A Draft Programmatic Agreement, with redactions for sensitive information as deemed appropriate by FHWA and FTA in consultation with Oregon SHPO, Washington DAHP, federally recognized tribes and consulting parties, is available for public comment. The Final Programmatic Agreement will be executed prior to the issuance of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and will be included as an appendix to the Final SEIS.

Public Comment

The views of the public are essential to the Section 106 process. The IBR Program is holding a 30-day online open house and public comment period to seek input on the Draft Programmatic Agreement, which includes stipulations that address processes and procedures for complying with Section 106 of the NHPA and proposed mitigations to resolve known adverse effects to historic properties.

From May 9 to June 8, 2025, the public can submit public comment on the Draft Programmatic Agreement by:

• Use the comment form at the bottom of the page
• Email: culturalresources@interstatebridge.org
• Call: 888-503-6735. State “Draft PA public comment” in your message.

View the Document:
Draft Programmatic Agreement
Attachment A: List of Consulting Parties
Attachment B: Area of Potential Effects
Attachment C: Historic Built Environment Resources Treatment Plan
Attachment E: Screened Program Actions Having Minimal Potential to Cause Effects to Historic Properties

Details regarding specific approaches, processes and responsibilities for completion of mitigation measures to resolve known adverse effects to historic built environment resources are available in the Historic Built Environment Resources Treatment Plan, Attachment C of the Programmatic Agreement.

Why is a Programmatic Agreement appropriate for the IBR Program?
In addition to documenting agreed upon mitigation when adverse effects are known, a Programmatic Agreement is appropriate to use when a federal undertaking is complex and effects to historic properties cannot be fully determined in advance. This type of agreement document is appropriate for the IBR Program because:

• It is not possible to fully determine the location of archaeological resources and Historic Properties of Religious and Cultural Significance to Indian Tribes (HPRCSITs) and the effects of the IBR Program on these places prior to the completion of NEPA and approval of the project;
• There is high potential for post-Section 106 decision-making, given the use of Program delivery methods such as design-build;
• There is high probability of sensitive cultural resources that may not be identified until after the completion of NEPA and completion of detailed project design.

What are the components of the IBR Program Section 106 Programmatic Agreement?
The Programmatic Agreement is composed of a Main Document and Attachments.

The Programmatic Agreement Main Document, includes:

Whereas Declarations, which identify the co-lead federal agencies, describe the undertaking, identify effects of the undertaking on historic properties, describe legal authorities, identify parties consulted in preparation of agreement, and describe federal agency government-to-government consultation with Tribes.

Stipulations, including:

• Roles and responsibilities of signatories to the Programmatic Agreement.
• Process for continued engagement with consulting parties and the public
• Standards and guidelines to be followed during implementation of the Programmatic Agreement.
• Measures to resolve adverse effects to known historic built environment properties.
• Procedures for completion of archaeological resource investigations, evaluations, assessments of effects, and resolution of adverse effects after the Programmatic Agreement is executed
• Consultation procedures regarding any future changes in Program design and construction projects.
• Procedures for consulting with tribes on historic properties of religious and cultural significance.
• Procedures for post-review discoveries and treatment of human remains.
• Training of Program managers, contractors and subcontractors, on-site construction managers and supervisors, etc. on the requirements of the Programmatic Agreement.
• Procedures for maintaining confidentiality of information on historic properties.
• Administrative stipulations, such as the process for dispute resolution, amending the Programmatic Agreement, monitoring the performance of the Programmatic Agreement, and the duration of the Programmatic Agreement.

The Programmatic Agreement Attachments include documents that are available for public review, and documents that contain sensitive information, which is confidential, and not available for public review:

Public attachments, available for review:

• Attachment A: List of Consulting Parties
• Attachment B: Area of Potential Effects
• Attachment C: Historic Built Environment Resources Treatment Plan
• Attachment E: Screened Program Actions Having Minimal Potential to Cause Effects to Historic Properties

Confidential attachments, which are not available for public review:

• Attachment D: Archaeological Resources Identification, Monitoring, and Treatment Plan
• Attachment F: Post-Review Discovery Plan
• Attachment G: Human Remains Treatment Plan

Next Steps

The Final Programmatic Agreement will be executed prior to the issuance of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and will be included as an appendix to the Final SEIS. 

Frequently Asked Questions

More Information

In March 2023, the IBR Program published Historic Built Environment Baseline Survey Reports for Oregon and Washington. The purpose of this baseline effort was to complete an initial evaluation of all identified historic built environment resources within the APE at a reconnaissance level. This effort was a “first look” to inform which properties should advance to intensive-level evaluation. From April 17 – May 18, 2023, the IBR Program hosted a 30-day public comment period to share the findings of the Historic Resources Baseline Survey Report with the public for review and input. Feedback received informed development of the Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect forms.

• IBR Oregon Historic Resources Baseline Survey Report
• IBR Washington Historic Resources Baseline Survey Report

Feedback received on the Historic Built Environment Survey Reports for Oregon and Washington informed development of the Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect documents. From October 18 – November 18, 2024, the IBR Program hosted a 30-day public comment period to share the Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect documents for public review and input.

Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Documents

• Oregon
• Washington

Finding of Effect (FOE) Documents: Located on the map below. 

You can view the Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect forms for each property by clicking on the historic properties shown on the map. Please note that all historic properties located on tax parcels that cross the Area of Potential Effects (APE) were surveyed, including cases where the property itself is outside the APE boundary. The APE boundary and the Determination of Eligibility and Finding of Effect forms available on the map may be adjusted in response to additional information and ongoing consultation. This information is current as of March 21, 2025.

Sources

• Advisory Council on Historic Preservation - Section 106 website
• FHWA Environmental Review Toolkit – Section 106 Tutorial
• Council on Environmental Quality – NEPA and NHPA
• Council on Environmental Quality - NEPA
• About the Program – The Case for IBR
• About the Program – Environmental Compliance
• Program Updates – IBR Modified LPA
• Program Updates – Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

The IBR Program's finding of no adverse effect to the Providence Academy is being disputed by a Section 106 consulting party member. When a dispute like this arises, we must notify the public and seek the opinion of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to resolve the matter.

NHPA Section 106 Consultation on Providence Academy- Response to Historic Trust

Letter Enclosures

• DAHP Letter
• DAHP Presentation
• THT Presentation
• Washington Baseline Report
• WA150 DOE 092023
• WA150 FOE 092023
• WA150 House of Providence
• WA150 Providence Academy

Documents

• Baseline Survey Report
• DAHP Consultation Letter (October 2023)
• DAHP Consultation Letter Attachment FOE Comments (October 2023)
• Providence Academy DOE (October 2023)
• Providence Academy FOE (October 2023)
• DAHP Presentation (November 2023)
• Providence Academy DOE (February 2024)
• Providence Academy FOE (February 2024)
• DAHP Concurrence Letter (February 2024)
• Historic Trust Presentation (September 2024)