On Friday, July 24th, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) voted to approve a disastrous rewrite of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The proposed revisions would have a devasting impact on historic resources across the country.

Join us in urging Congress to oppose the ACHP's dangerous proposal and any regulatory changes that weaken the NHPA.

Section 106 of the NHPA is the foundational requirement for federal agencies to take into account a federal project's impact on historic resources by providing State, Tribal, and local governments and the public with a voice in the process, but does not mandate an outcome. While not always perfect, the Section 106 process has worked effectively and efficiently, leading to better project outcomes.

What's in the Proposal

At the same time as we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act, the proposal from the ACHP is the most significant rewrite of Section 106 in its history. The revisions shift authority away from collaborative consultation and toward unilateral agency control. Despite the desire to accelerate the federal review process, the regulations will actually lead to more delays and litigation.

Here’s some of what was in the proposal:

• Elimination of meaningful consultation with State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. Agencies would prepare a single report— identifying historic properties, evaluating effects, and deciding mitigation (if any) —before circulating for comment, instead of developing it alongside states, Tribes, and other consulting parties.
• Fewer seats at the table. Local governments would be cut out of the consultation process. The public and preservation organizations would no longer be considered as consulting parties. Public input would become entirely discretionary.
• Fewer projects reviewed. Broad categories of federally connected work — including projects with minimal federal funding/control and those aligned with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) categorical exclusions — could be exempted from review entirely.
• Significant cultural landscapes would no longer be considered historic. The proposal redefines what is considered “historic property”. This would exclude certain cultural landscapes, including mountains, valleys, and ethnographic landscapes, reducing protections for Tribal sacred sites and Traditional Cultural Properties. A requirement for historic property to be "geographically compact" could also impact large urban and rural historic districts.
• No longer required to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm. In cases of adverse effects, federal agencies can decide that other considerations outweigh historic preservation on a federal project and are not required to avoid or minimize harm. It also limits what is considered an adverse effect to those that are reasonably foreseeable — cutting out longstanding consideration of setting, visual impacts, and indirect effects.

As the historic preservation community knows, Section 106 has never been about stopping projects; it's about bringing multiple sources of expertise to the table before decisions are final. This proposal moves most of that expertise to the sidelines.

Reach out to your U.S. Representative and Senators and urge them to oppose any regulatory changes that weaken the National Historic Preservation Act and instead support a process that is consistent with the NHPA and fully considers the perspective of stakeholders.