Resources for April 29

Section 106: Further reading

The National Endowment for the Humanities explains Section 106 in detail (PDF)

How to initiate Section 106 consultation with the Idaho SHPO

A blog about Section 106 proceedings at one particular site

A Section 106 worksheet (PDF)

Section 106 case digest from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Readability and Comprehensibility as NEPA Minimums (PDF): a report mentioned in Our Unprotected Heritage

Topock Section 106 (PDF): see discussion beginning on page 25

 

Questions for discussion

1. What are the benefits and liabilities of the Section 106 process, in theory and in practice?

2. Do you think it’s good that NEPA and NHPA are so closely related? In what ways are “light green” laws related to what King terms “heritage laws”?

3. Evaluate King’s “Memo to President Obama” (pp. 161-64) and Beckerman’s recommendations to the Obama administration (pp. 170-71).  Which of the recommendations do you find most compelling and workable?  Explain your answer.  Which are you less enthusiastic about, and why?

4. In small groups, consider one of the following documents and follow the instructions associated with it.  Be prepared to present your findings to the class and answer questions about them.

Samples of Section 106 programmatic agreements:

  • from Idaho (PDF): Diagram the review/consultation process.
  • from Alaska (PDF): Diagram the review/consultation process.
  • from Minnesota (PDF): Diagram the process to date, as well as the process for future review, preservation, and exemptions.

5. How much do King’s criticisms, arguments, and recommendations apply to the document you examined in #4?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *