Thanks for the clarification Mary.  I wish it read that the acceptance
of money by the agency obligated the agency to be aware of its resources
and seek to protect them...but they haven't appointed me to rewrite the
rules...yet.

-jc

Mary Krugman wrote:

> In a message dated 1/10/2003 5:05:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>> Must a federal agency be involved, or is it enough that federal money
>> be in the project?
>
>
>
> 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