skip
specific nav links
Home Working
with Section 106 Section
106 in Action Archive
of Prominent Section 106 Cases Prominent Section 106 Cases: Winter
2002
Prominent
Section 106 Cases: Winter 2002
Introduction
and Criteria for ACHP Involvement
California:
Transfer of the Old U.S. Mint, San Francisco
Hawaii:
Redevelopment of Ford Island and Management
of the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex/Navy Region Hawaii
Construction
of Telescopes at Mauna Kea Science Reserve
Michigan:
Demolition
of Allen Park Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Nebraska:
Construction
of South and East Beltway, Lincoln
New
Mexico and Arizona:
Development of Fence Lake Mine
New
York:
Disaster Assistance Programs at the
World Trade Center Site, New York City
South
Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska:
Missouri River Master Manual, and Title VI Land Transfer
West
Virginia:
Redevelopment of Murphy Farm, Harpers
Ferry
Introduction
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) 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
actions 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, 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 the attention of ACHP.
The specific Criteria for ACHP Involvement in reviewing
Section 106 cases are set forth in Appendix A
of ACHPs 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. In the wake of
the September 11 terrorist attacks, ACHP has participated in consultation
to address the implications for historic properties of disaster relief
and recovery efforts at the World Trade Center site. At the same time,
we have also been working to ensure the preservation of historic properties
at Pearl Harbor, 60 years after that attack on America. Projects affecting
other important historic properties also have required ACHPs
attention, including modern development adjacent to Harpers Ferry National
Historical Park and the transfer of the Old U.S. Mint out of Federal ownership.
Several cases profiled in this report also feature important policy issues,
such as how to address changing capital asset management needs at the
Department of Veterans Affairs and how to mitigate the impact of Federal
projects on properties of traditional religious and cultural significance
to Indian tribes and Native Hawaiians. Likewise, this report highlights
the wide variety of Federal activities that trigger the Section 106 review
process. Whether the Federal Government is funding the construction of
new roads, disposing of property, or approving mines on Federal lands,
its activities can impact historic properties.
This report 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.
In addition to this report, ACHPs Web site contains a useful
library of information about ACHP and
Section 106 review.
Updated
May 6, 2003
Return to Top |