Home Working with Section 106 Section 106 in Action Archive of Prominent Section 106 Cases Prominent Section 106 Cases: Fall 2001

Introduction and Criteria for ACHP Involvement

California:
Development of the Presidio Trust Implementation Plan, Presidio of San Francisco

Hawaii:
Redevelopment of Ford Island and Management of the Pearl Harbor Naval Complex/Navy Region Hawaii

Kentucky/Indiana:
Implementation of Louisville-South Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project

Massachusetts:
Introduction of Commercial Passenger Service at Hanscom Field, Bedford

Michigan:
Demolition of Allen Park Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Minnesota/Wisconsin:
Replacement of Stillwater Lift Bridge

Nebraska:
Construction of South and East Beltway, Lincoln

New York:
Construction of Foley Square U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building, New York (closed case follow-up)
Redevelopment of John F. Kennedy Airport Terminals 5 and 6, New York

South Dakota/North Dakota/Nebraska/Montana:
Missouri River Master Manual, and Title VI Land Transfer

Wisconsin:
Replacement of Sturgeon Bay Bridge

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 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, 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. There may be complex preservation issues, substantial public controversy, precedent-setting situations, or simply significant impacts on important historic properties.

The specific Criteria for ACHP 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. From management of historic properties at Pearl Harbor and the Presidio of San Francisco to growth at an airport with the potential to affect Minute Man National Historical Park, projects affecting important historic properties have required ACHP’s attention.

Several cases profiled in this report also feature important policy issues, including how to address changing capital asset management needs at the Department of Veterans Affairs and conflicts between the preservation of historic resources and the conservation of natural resources. 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 and bridges, building new Federal buildings, or approving changes to the layout of airports, 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, ACHP’s Web site contains a useful library of information about ACHP and Section 106 review.

Updated June 6, 2002

Return to Top