What Is the Section 106 Agreement

This guide is intended for all stakeholders referred to in section 106. It is designed to assist federal agencies, state and tribal historic preservation officers, Native American tribes, Hawaiian native organizations, applicants, local governments, and other advisory parties to develop clear, concise, and comprehensive Protocols of Understanding (MOAs) and Programmatic Agreements (PAs) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). It will also assist federal organizations and those they consult through the section 106 process to develop, implement, monitor, amend and terminate these agreements. Using this guide can help minimize disputes over agreed measures at all levels and save time that can be better invested in finding creative ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative effects on historic properties. Welcome to the Historic Preservation Advisory Council (AAP) Guidelines on Section 106 Contract Documents. Section 106 contractual documents play a critical role in documenting a federal agency`s obligation to fulfill its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (54 U.S.C§ 306108). This advice is provided to assist federal agencies, states, Native American tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, applicants, local governments, advisory parties, and the public in developing, implementing, and entering into such agreements. The subject we address in these pages is the financing of open spaces, sports and recreational facilities guaranteed by these S.106 agreements. Other infrastructure and facilities guaranteed by the S.106 agreements, such as motorway improvements and affordable housing, are managed by East Devon District Council with other partners such as The County of Devon for road works and the East Devons Housing Department and registered housing providers for affordable housing.

the Government in response to its consultations on measures to expedite negotiations and the Article 106 Agreement; and with respect to contributions to affordable housing and student residences, significant changes have been made to the Planning Policy Guidelines (PPG), in particular section S106, but also to related areas, including the Sustainability Guidelines. A section 106 agreement can be amended or relieved, and the assistance of a planning expert should be sought to help negotiate this process. With respect to proponents` contributions, the Community Infrastructure Tax (ITC) has not replaced section 106 agreements, and the introduction of the ICA has led to a tightening of section 106 testing. S106 agreements should focus on the specific mitigation measures required for further development in terms of developer contributions. CIL is designed to respond to the broader impact of development. There should be no circumstances in which a developer pays CIL and S106 for the same infrastructure in connection with the same development. Well before the Agency begins to prepare an agreement document, it should convene one or more consultation meetings to help it draw these conclusions and discuss how the company may adversely affect the characteristics of historic properties. Advisory parties must include state historic preservation officers (outside of tribal areas or on tribal areas where no tribal historic preservation officers are designated) and/or tribal historic preservation officers or Native American tribes (on tribal lands), and may include ACHP, Native American tribes, Hawaiian indigenous organizations, Fellows, permit or license holders, conservation organizations, local governments, the National Park Service (NPS) and others.

(see 36 CFR § 800.2 for a full description of the advisory parties and their roles under Section 106 of the Regulations). If a federal agency has determined that the company may have a negative impact on historic real property, or has determined that a programmatic approach to section 106 compliance needs to be developed, it demonstrates that it is complying with its section 106 obligations to “consider the impact of its obligation on historic properties” and to give CHPA a “reasonable opportunity” to comment; by signing and implementing an agreement document (MOA or PA). In the rare event that the advisory parties fail to reach an agreement, a requested signatory may terminate the consultation and request formal comments from CHPA (see 36 CFR § 800.7). A federal agency may also pursue an “AP program” (36 CFR § 800.14(b)(2)) if it wishes to create a section 106 process that is different from the standard review process and applies to all businesses under a particular program. The rationale for program PAs includes a program that has obligations that have similar or repetitive effects on historic real property to avoid the need for a separate section 106 review for each project (p.B Class Grant Agreements for Community Development), or that relies on the transfer of important decision-making tasks to non-federal parties (p.B delegation of certain responsibilities under Section 106 by the Federal Highway Administration to the State Departments of Transportation). ACHP has helped develop numerous PA programs for the routine management of real estate, land, and historic real estate in federal facilities such as military facilities, national forests, national energy laboratories, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration centers. The content of the S106 agreement will be agreed with the parties concerned and the planning officer during the consultation phase of the construction application. The S106 legal agreement can be prepared by counsel`s lawyers, and plaintiffs must pay the attorney`s fees without VAT.

There is another type of agreement mentioned in the provisions of Article 106 of 36 CFR § 800.2(c)(2)(ii)(E). A consultation protocol is an agreement developed between the federal agency and one or more state-approved Native American tribes or Hawaiian Native Organizations (NHO) that determines how the agency consults that Native American tribe or NHO on one, several or all of its projects or programs. They are strictly negotiated between the agency and the tribe or NHO and may include confidentiality provisions and other specific tribal or NHO concerns. The parties only have to submit a copy to the shpo(s) and ACHP concerned; no other party needs to be involved in its negotiations. Such agreements may also go beyond the requirements of the standard process under Article 106 and other aspects of the agency-tribe relationship with NHO (e.B. who is the contact person, for what types of businesses the tribe or NHO wishes to participate in the consultation, etc.). However, the Protocol may not modify or condition the role of other participants under Article 106 (e.B. SHPO, ACHP, etc.) without their consent. For more information, see the ACHP manuals for consultation with Native American tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. In addition to these rules, profitability and the economy as a whole play a role in determining the scope and scope of a section 106 agreement. Section 106 agreements are entered into when the development is expected to have a significant impact on the local area that cannot be mitigated by the conditions attached to a planning decision. Even if the agency has a complex business or several businesses targeted by an AP project, development should only begin after the federal agency has previously identified all advisory parties and ensured that it is aware of the scope and scope of activities that will include the business, the range of historical properties currently known and what may still be present within the EPA, know mastery.

and how everyone could be affected. Providing this context so that the parties to the consultation have a broad understanding of the business will allow them to better provide the Agency with sound and relevant advice on how to resolve adverse effects in the public interest. Agreements under section 106 may also be called planning agreements or commitments under section 106, or development agreements under section 106, but they all refer to the same thing and can be interpreted as equivalent terms […].