Getting started in the Section 106 process

  1. What are a federal agency’s responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA?
  2. What is the role of the federal agency official in the Section 106 process?
  3. What is the ACHP’s policy on dealing with burial sites, human remains, and funerary objects?
  4. Does issuance of an ARPA permit constitute an undertaking requiring Section 106 review?
  5. Who owns the artifacts recovered from private land?
  6. Can the NHPA be used to restrict access to information about an archaeological site?

 

Section 106 consultation about archaeology

  1. What is Section 106 consultation?
  2. Why should federal agencies consult with other parties about archaeology?
  3. Who consults with whom, and how?
  4. When does consultation begin?
  5. Are federal agencies expected to pay consulting parties for Section 106 participation?
  6. What is the role of applicants and their consultants/contractors in archaeology conducted under Section 106?
  7. How much consultation is enough?
  8. When does consultation end?
  9. How can federal agencies foster more informed participation by stakeholders in consultation about archaeology?
  10. What happens when a consulting party cannot or will not provide its views?
  11. Can archaeologists participate in Section 106 review as consulting parties?

 

Determining which archaeological sites are significant: Identification

  1. Does the federal agency have to identify or locate all archaeological sites for Section 106 review?
  2. What is the “reasonable and good faith effort” regulatory standard?
  3. How do federal agencies meet the “reasonable and good faith effort” standard?
  4. How should federal agencies consider the magnitude and nature of the undertaking, and the degree of federal involvement, in determining the appropriate level of effort for identification?
  5. How should federal agencies consider the nature and extent of potential effects on historic properties in determining the appropriate level of effort for identification?
  6. How should federal agencies consider the likely nature and location of historic properties within the area of potential effects in determining the appropriate level of effort for identification?
  7. How should federal agencies consider past planning, research, and studies in determining the appropriate level of effort for identification?
  8. With whom should a federal agency consult in determining how to meet the “reasonable and good faith effort” regulatory standard?
  9. How are disputes about the “reasonable and good faith effort” standard resolved?
  10. Why is the “area of potential effects” (APE) important in identifying eligible archaeological sites?
  11. How is the area of potential effects (APE) determined?
  12. Should the area of potential effects (APE) also be defined vertically?
  13. What constitutes a “reasonable and good faith effort” to identify historic properties in accordance with the ACHP’s Policy Statement on Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation?

 

Determining which archaeological sites are significant: Evaluation

  1. How are eligibility determinations made in Section 106 review?
  2. What are the consequences of eligibility determinations in the Section 106 process?
  3. What special role do Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations have in evaluating properties?
  4. What kind of information is necessary to evaluate the eligibility of an archaeological site?
  5. Is a National Register nomination form required in a Section 106 evaluation of eligibility?
  6. Is every archaeological site eligible for the National Register?
  7. Can you evaluate archaeological sites under Criteria A-C in addition to D?
  8. Does the presence of human remains make an archaeological site eligible for the National Register?
  9. When should an agency reevaluate the National Register status of archaeological sites?
  10. Is the loss of access by archaeologists to archaeological properties an adverse effect under the ACHP’s regulations?

 

Reaching agreement on appropriate treatment

  1. What information is needed to decide on treatment options?
  2. When is data recovery the appropriate treatment?
  3. What issues should be considered when consulting about mitigation?
  4. What is “alternative” or “creative” mitigation?
  5. Are there advantages to considering alternative mitigation?
  6. How can federal agencies find out about appropriate treatment options and alternatives?

 

Completing the Section 106 process

  1. What are a federal agency’s responsibilities to complete Section 106 review?