About
ACHP 
ACHP News
National Historic
Preservation
Program
Working with
Section 106
Federal, State, & Tribal Programs
Training & Education
Publications
Search
Home
Working
with Section 106 ACHP
Case Digest
Winter 2003
Case Digest, Winter 2003
Protecting Historic Properties: Section 106 in Action
Introduction and Criteria for ACHP Involvement
California:
Replacement
of Doyle Drive at the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco
California:
Closed
case update: Geothermal Development at Medicine Lake Highlands
Hawaii:
Redevelopment of Ford Island at Pearl Harbor
Kansas:
Construction of the South Lawrence Trafficway,
Lawrence
Nevada:
Preservation of Cave Rock, Lake Tahoe
New Jersey:
Closed case: Development of the Allied Textile
Printing Site, Paterson
Texas:
Excavation at Buckeye Knoll, Victoria
Virginia:
Development at Chancellorsville Battlefield,
Fredericksburg
Virginia:
Construction of the King William Reservoir,
King William County
Introduction
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 March 19, 2003
Return to Top