From the President’s Desk
“It is odd and difficult to understand that as our nation commemorates 250 years of American ideals and progress, historic preservation values and benefits are being undermined and dismantled. It is time for our movement and community to mobilize and advocate for our shared history.”
If you missed these remarks from National Trust President and CEO Brent Leggs during last week’s webinar “Section 106 Regulations Under Threat” or would like to revisit this important session, the recording is now available.
Your Section 106 To Do List
As the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) advances a sweeping and damaging proposal to rewrite the regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, your insights, stories, and advocacy will help make the case for why preservation matters not just to history but to the future we share.
We are setting an ambitious goal of sending 250,000 letters to our elected officials.
Join us in this effort.
Write to your governor to share how these changes impact historic properties in your location. TAKE ACTION>>
Write to your members of Congress and consider contacting the district office during the August recess to make your voice heard. TAKE ACTION>>
Send us examples of Section 106 consultations that benefited your community. TAKE ACTION>>
Be prepared to send comments to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation when the comment period opens. In the meantime, explore available resources. EXPLORE>>
Section 106 Webinar: Specifics on the Technical Complexities
Thursday, August 12, 2 PM ET
Join us for a virtual conversation with Betsy Merritt, Deputy General Counsel at the National Trust, and other issue experts to better understand the implications and technical complexities of the proposed changes to the Section 106 regulations.
More Info
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is advancing a sweeping and damaging proposal to rewrite the regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). If implemented, these new rules would dramatically diminish the effectiveness of the NHPA and the current legal protections for historic and cultural places.
Since the enactment of NHPA 60 years ago, Section 106 has been the foundational requirement for federal agencies to “take into account” the effects of their actions on historic properties and places, enabling public participation and comment in the process, empowering state and local governments and tribal communities to have a voice in the process, and often improving the project and enhancing the outcome.
The ACHP Proposal Would Eviscerate This Process And Principles
These new regulations will lead to more delays and more litigation as federal agencies and ap- plicants try to navigate compliance without the well-known and well-used consultation process, which often leads to negotiated win-win outcomes. The preservation community and our part- ners across the country are mobilizing to fight this harmful proposal.
Some of the most disturbing aspects of the proposed changes include:
Federal agencies will no longer be required to try to avoid or minimize damage to America’s historic architecture, neighborhoods, and landscapes.
State and local governments will no longer have the right to be notified or have the opportunity to comment when federal agencies propose to damage or destroy historic places within their jurisdiction.
The public’s opportunity to comment on federal historic preservation policies or actions would now be entirely optional, at the discretion of the federal agency.
The federal government will no longer be required to consult with Native American tribes or seek their expertise regarding their own significant cultural resources.
• Significant cultural landscape features would no longer be considered historic properties, so federal agencies would no longer be required to take into account any adverse effects to significant places such as the Grand Canyon.
• Federal agencies would no longer be required to consider the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions on historic properties, other than direct actions that physically damage the properties.
• These regulations are inconsistent with the National Historic Preservation Act and would violate the Council’s own rules and procedures.
• The proposed changes are also internally inconsistent and riddled with errors, likely to cause enormous regulatory confusion and chaos.
