Return to Case Digest Archives
Archive of Prominent Section 106 Cases:
October 1999


Criteria for

California: Marine Corps Air Station (Tustin)

California: U.S. Courthouse (San Diego)

California: Gold Mine (Imperial County)

California: Geothermal Developments (Modoc
& Klamath National Forests)

Florida: Rowland Subdivision (Okeechobee)

Kansas: South
Lawrence Trafficway

Louisiana: Industrial Canal Lock (New Orleans)

Minnesota-Wisconsin: Stillwater Lift Bridge

New Jersey: Congress Hall Hotel (Cape May)

Ohio: Cleveland Bulk Terminal

Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Naval Hospital

Texas: USS Cabot/ Dedalo (Brownsville)

Return to Archive of Prominent Section 106 Cases

Archive of Prominent Section 106 Cases:
October 1999

Introduction to Update on Prominent Section 106 Cases: October 1999

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires Federal agencies to consider historic preservation values when planning their activities. In the Section 106 process, a Federal agency must identify affected historic properties, evaluate the proposed actionís effects, and then explore ways to avoid or mitigate those effects.

The Federal agency conducts this process in consultation with State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and other parties with an interest in the preservation issues.

Each year thousands of Federal actions undergo Section 106 review. The vast majority of cases are routine and resolved at the State or tribal level, without involvement of the Council. However, a considerable number of cases present issues or challenges that warrant the attention of the Council. They may present complex preservation issues, substantial public controversy, precedent-setting situations, or simply significant impacts on important historic properties.

This report provides basic information on a small but representative cross-section of Section 106 projects in which the Council is currently involved. It illustrates the great diversity and range of resources that can be affected by Federal actions, including a Naval hospital, aircraft carrier, traditional cultural properties, wooden dirigible hangars, and a bridge.

Likewise, this report highlights the wide variety of Federal activities that trigger the Section 106 preview process. While the Federal involvement is obvious when the Federal Highway Administration funds a highway construction project or the General Services Administration builds a Federal courthouse, the Federal connection and presence can be obscure when it is an Army Corps of Engineers permit for a privately funded housing development or a Department of Housing and Urban Development grant administered by a small town.

This report reflects the variety and complexity of Federal activities impacting historic properties that come before the Council. It illustrates the ways the Federal Government influences what happens to historic properties in communities throughout the Nation.

It also highlights the importance of informed citizens to be alert to potential conflicts between Federal actions and historic preservation goals, and the necessity for public participation to achieve the best possible preservation solution.

The Councilís Web site also offers a useful library of information about the Council and the Section 106 process.

Return to top of page

ACHP home page Working with Section 106

We welcome your feedback