Cultural Resources

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 lead federal agencies for the IBR Program.

NEPA and Section 106 Coordination

While NEPA and Section 106 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. Environmental review for the IBR Program is also being jointly led by the FHWA and the FTA. The IBR Program is coordinating these evaluations with FHWA and FTA and both reviews are being taken into consideration as design progresses on the proposed Program investments. 

The Section 106 comment period is concurrent with the on-going NEPA comment period. To learn more about the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) visit the Program’s Draft SEIS webpage. To learn more about the NEPA process visit the Program’s Environmental Compliance webpage. 

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 Oregon SHPO, Washington DAHP, federal agencies, 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 SHPO, DAHP, consulting tribes and other 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 cultural resources will be implemented through the Programmatic Agreement. 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 ODOT, WSDOT, SHPO, DAHP, consulting tribes, consulting parties and the public as part of the Programmatic Agreement development process. FHWA and FTA will require preparation of a Historic Built Environment Treatment Plan to specify approaches, processes, and responsibilities for completion of the mitigation measures stipulated in the Programmatic Agreement.

Identification of the mitigation for adverse effects to historic properties is completed through the NHPA Section 106 process. FHWA and FTA, in coordination with ODOT and WSDOT, and in consultation with SHPO, DAHP, consulting tribes and other consulting parties, have chosen to complete the Section 106 process and resolve adverse effects on historic properties through the development of a Programmatic Agreement pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(b). A Draft Programmatic Agreement, with redactions for sensitive information as deemed appropriate by FHWA and FTA in consultation with SHPO, DAHP, consulting tribes and other consulting parties, will be made available to the public prior to publication of the Final SEIS. The Final Programmatic Agreement will be executed prior to the issuance of the Amended Record of Decision (ROD) and will be included as an appendix to the Amended ROD.

Public Comment 

The views of the public are essential to the Section 106 process. The IBR Program held a Section 106 public comment period for 30 days during the last half of the Draft SEIS public comment period from October 18 – November 18, 2024. This duration is typical for Section 106 public review periods and the public had the opportunity to provide input on the identification of historic properties and the assessment of effects on those properties.

Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Documents: Located on the map below. 
Oregon
Washington

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

A separate opportunity to provide input on the Programmatic Agreement, including identification of mitigation to resolve adverse effects to historic properties, will be provided to the public during another 30-day review period in early 2025. The Final Programmatic Agreement will be executed prior to the issuance of the Amended Record of Decision (ROD) and will be included as an appendix to the Amended ROD.

Next Steps

Section 106 of NHPA identifies historic properties potentially effected by federal undertakings, assesses effects of the undertaking on historic properties, and seeks ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties, if needed. FHWA and FTA will develop an agreement that outlines mitigation strategies, in consultation with Oregon SHPO, Washington DAHP, federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, consulting parties and the public, called a Programmatic Agreement.

The Programmatic Agreement and mitigation strategies must be created with input from consulting parties and the public.

Our immediate next steps include:

• Incorporating, where appropriate, public input into DOE and FOE documents and re-submitting to Oregon SHPO and Washington DAHP as necessary.
• Considering effects to identified properties, supplemented by consultation, and considering avoidance and minimization opportunities.
• Coordinating on the identification of mitigation concepts to resolve adverse effects.
• Preparing the Programmatic Agreement.
• Holding an online open house to seek public input on the Draft Programmatic Agreement in early 2025. 

Frequently Asked Questions

More Information

In March 2023, the IBR Program published the Historic Built Environment Baseline Survey Reports for Oregon and Washington. The purpose of this baseline effort was to initially evaluate all identified HBE resources in the APE at a reconnaissance level and inform which properties should advance to intensive-level evaluation with preparation of Section 106 DOE forms for individual properties. As such, the level of effort for each property in the baseline study was intentionally a “first look.” From April – May 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 DOE and FOE documents.

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

The IBR Program hosted another 30-day public comment period from October – November 2024 to receive public input on the DOE and FOE documents.

Determination of Eligibility (DOE) Documents: Located on the map below. 

• Oregon
• Washington

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

A separate opportunity to provide input on the Programmatic Agreement, including identification of mitigation to resolve adverse effects to historic properties, will be provided to the public during another 30-day review period in early 2025. The Final Programmatic Agreement will be executed prior to the issuance of the Amended Record of Decision (ROD) and will be included as an appendix to the Amended ROD.

Learn more about Section 106 of NHPA and NEPA.

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)