Return to Case Digest Archives
skip general nav links ACHP home About ACHP


National Historic

Working with
Section 106

Federal, State, & Tribal Programs

Training & Education


 skip specific nav links
Home arrow Working with Section 106 arrow ACHP Case Digest arrow Fall 2002
Case Digest, Fall 2002
Protecting Historic Properties: Section 106 in Action

Introduction and Criteria for ACHP Involvement

Closed case: Geothermal Development at Medicine Lake Highlands

District of Columbia:
Security Upgrades at the Washington Monument

Redevelopment of the St. Thomas Housing Project, New Orleans

New Mexico:
Closed case: Land Transfer at Los Alamos National Laboratory

New York:
Transfer of Ownership of the Mechanicville Hydroelectric Plant

New York:
Redevelopment of the TWA Terminal at JFK International Airport, New York

Rehabilitation of the Pioneer Square U.S. Courthouse and U.S. Post Office, Portland

Widening of U.S. Route 202, Chester and Delaware Counties

Development at Chancellorsville Battlefield, Fredericksburg


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 action’s effects, and then explore ways to avoid or mitigate those effects. The Federal agency conducts this process in consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers, representatives of Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and other parties with an interest in the 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 ACHP. However, a considerable number of cases present issues or challenges that warrant ACHP’s attention. The specific Criteria for Council Involvement in reviewing Section 106 cases are set forth in Appendix A of ACHP’s regulations. In accordance with those criteria, ACHP is likely to enter the Section 106 process when an undertaking:

  • has substantial impacts on important historic properties (Criterion 1);
  • presents important questions of policy or interpretation (Criterion 2);
  • has the potential for presenting procedural problems (Criterion 3); and/or
  • presents issues of concern to Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations (Criterion 4).

This report provides information on a small but representative cross-section of undertakings that illustrate the variety and complexity of Federal activities in which ACHP is currently involved. It illustrates the ways the Federal Government influences what happens to historic properties in communities throughout the Nation, and 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.

In addition to this report, ACHP’s Web site contains a useful library of information about ACHP and Section 106 review.

Posted October 23, 2002

Return to Top