Hello, everyone!

Regarding Section 106, it applies for projects including federal involvement.
This involvement can be in the form of money, permits, licenses, etc.  For
example, NPS grant money (usually via the SHPO), transportation money (as Mary
pointed out), Army Corps permits, FCC licenses (for things like cell towers),
FDIC insured (bank projects), activities on Federal lands (like military bases)
and the list goes on.  Each federal agency is required to have their own
program for addressing Section 106 regulations.  I've heard of one agency,
somewhat new to these types of issues, actually say, "We're not a federal
agency."  Response:  "So, what does the F in FCC stand for?"

Some states also have similar regulations for state-level permits and state-
sponsored activities.

For the specific project that they're discussing, I wonder if an Environmental
Assessment was required for the project.  These include a section regarding
cultural resources, including both archaeology and historic
buildings/structures.

Hope this helps.  The implementing regs are in 36 CFR 800, available online at
the US Government Printing OFfice website and also, I think, on the Advisory
Council for Historic Preservation's site (http://www.achp.org).  It's actually
not completely confusing once you read through these.

Happy New Year!

Sign me
Section 106 = Bread and Butter

> >
> >

> > Federal $$
> >
> > And how directly do the federal funds need to be?  If a university
> > accepts federal
> >
> >> funds for purposes having nothing to do with  historic resources,
> >> such as medical research, or maybe teaching, are they subject to 106
> >> review when they go messing with historic buildings?
> >
> >
> >
> > The $ has to be directly associated with something that happens to
> > cultural resources (buildings structures sites objects districts) that
> > are listed, eligible or potentially eligible for NR. Requires
> > consultation with "consulting parties."
> >
> > How about a state government, that takes money for highways, what are
> > their
> >
> >> obligations in other departments.
> >
> >
> > Transportation funds are subject to DOTA (4)(f) - even better! The

> > project must not destroy cultural resources unless there are no
> > prudent and feasible alternatives ... hence constituting the bread and
> > butter for projects for consultants who have to figure out what the
> > alternatives are. :-)
> >
> > M
>
>

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>