FAQ

Only if a legal trigger applies. A federal permit, federal funding, a state approval, or a local ordinance can each require one on private land. Absent any trigger, a private project on private land often has no survey requirement, though state unmarked burial laws still apply if human remains are encountered.

The applicant, in nearly every case. Section 106 places the legal duty on the federal agency, but agencies routinely require applicants to fund and produce the studies the review depends on.

It depends on project size, the number of consulting parties, and whether resources are found. The regulations set specific review windows for consulting parties, but the total duration is driven by fieldwork scope and consultation, not by a single statutory deadline. Early scoping is the main lever you control.

Section 106 addresses effects on historic properties specifically and is administered by the ACHP under 36 CFR Part 800. NEPA addresses environmental effects broadly. Both can apply to the same project, and agencies often coordinate the two reviews, but satisfying one does not satisfy the other.

A State Historic Preservation Officer administers the national historic preservation program within a state and is a required consulting party in Section 106 review. A Tribal Historic Preservation Officer carries out those functions on Tribal lands for a Tribe that has assumed them, and consults in place of the SHPO for undertakings on those lands.

No. Tribes are consulting parties with substantial standing in the process, and their concerns carry real weight, but Section 106 does not grant any consulting party a veto. Unresolved objections escalate within the process rather than terminating the project. Late-surfacing disputes do create litigation and permitting risk, which is why early engagement matters.

Both. Historic properties include buildings, structures, districts, objects, and sites, along with cultural landscapes and traditional cultural properties. Many jurisdictions also require review of paleontological resources, which are treated separately from cultural resources but are often surveyed by the same team.

A written protocol agreed to before construction that states what happens if cultural resources are found unexpectedly. It names who is notified, who has authority to stop and restart work, and what treatment applies. It is usually incorporated into a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement and it is what separates a scheduled interruption from an open-ended one.

A records search, sometimes called a desk-based assessment, reviews existing site files, maps, and prior reports to determine what is already known about a site. A Phase I survey adds systematic fieldwork to determine what is actually present. A records search can sometimes resolve a low-sensitivity project on its own. More often it scopes the fieldwork.

Yes, and it should be. Cultural resource work runs in parallel with design and permitting when it starts early enough. Sequenced after design, it becomes the bottleneck.

As early as possible. Cultural resource requirements can affect project design, permitting, construction schedules, and agency consultation. Starting during planning allows potential constraints to be identified while designs can still change. Waiting until permits are being submitted or construction is approaching leaves fewer options and increases the risk of avoidable delays.

Section 106 applies when a project qualifies as a federal undertaking with the potential to affect historic properties. Common triggers include federal funding, permits, licenses, approvals, or projects carried out by a federal agency. A project does not need to be located on federal land for Section 106 to apply.

Work in the immediate area is typically stopped and the discovery is evaluated under the project’s approved procedures and applicable laws. The response depends on what was found and the jurisdiction involved. Having an unanticipated discoveries plan in place beforehand makes responsibilities clear and helps prevent a localized discovery from disrupting the wider project.

Archaeological monitoring places a qualified archaeologist on site while construction or ground-disturbing work occurs in areas where cultural resources may be present. The archaeologist observes excavation, documents discoveries, and follows agreed procedures when resources are encountered. Monitoring is often used when avoidance is impractical or the archaeological risk cannot be resolved beforehand.

The Area of Potential Effects, or APE, is the geographic area within which a project may directly or indirectly affect historic properties. It is established by the federal agency in consultation with appropriate parties. The APE can include more than the construction footprint when visual, auditory, atmospheric, or other indirect effects are possible.

A property generally must have significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture and retain enough integrity to convey that significance. Eligibility is evaluated using National Register criteria. A property does not need to be formally listed in the National Register to receive consideration under Section 106.

The agency consults with the SHPO, THPO, Tribes, applicants, and other consulting parties to look for ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effect. The agreed measures are usually documented in a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement. An adverse effect does not automatically mean that a project cannot proceed.

Phase I identifies archaeological resources that may be present. Phase II evaluates whether identified sites are significant or eligible for the National Register. Phase III generally involves data recovery when an eligible site cannot be avoided. The terminology varies by jurisdiction, but the progression moves from identification to evaluation and, when necessary, mitigation.

Yes. A records review and cultural resource risk assessment can identify known sites, previous surveys, historic properties, and areas with greater archaeological sensitivity before acquisition. It cannot eliminate every unknown, but it can reveal potential compliance, cost, and schedule issues early enough to inform site selection and development decisions.

Not necessarily. Archaeology concerns evidence of past human activity, while paleontology concerns fossils and other evidence of ancient life. Different federal, state, and local requirements may apply to each. A project can require both archaeological and paleontological assessment, particularly where construction involves substantial ground disturbance in sensitive areas.