Johnette,

Your web link didn't work for me, but I found this one.

http://archnet.asu.edu/archnet/topical/crm/usdocs/law800.htm

This appears to be the whole regulation.

-jc

On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 11:47  AM, Johnette Davies wrote:

> 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>
>

--
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>