The Trump administration decided to overhaul the regulations of the federal historic preservation agency. This decision poses a threat to historic sites nationwide. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which I once chaired, typically safeguards such landmarks.
The Council administers Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, affecting around 120,000 federal actions annually. These actions include construction projects, private project funding, and permits for resource extraction. Section 106 mandates that agencies assess potential negative impacts on historic properties listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
The proposed regulatory changes alter the scope of protection. Sites must be “geographically compact” to gain protection. This criteria leaves many archaeological sites and landscapes, especially those important to Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives, vulnerable. In an extreme case, a pipeline could be built across iconic sites like Gettysburg Battlefield.
The revisions extend beyond this. Some undertakings, such as state and local government projects, may become exempt. This change risks rapid destruction of neighborhoods without the scrutiny that once inspired the National Historic Preservation Act’s passage. Even projects subject to review could see a narrowed definition of harm, excluding auditory, visual, and atmospheric effects.
An example is Trump’s proposed arch. Its construction noise would impact Arlington National Cemetery for three years, altering the historic vistas between the cemetery and D.C. landmarks.
The new regulations also weaken mandatory consultations, a key component of Section 106. This process involves numerous stakeholders, including Indian Tribes and local officials. Effective consultations have previously resulted in savings and damage prevention through project modifications. Now, agencies might engage a limited group at the end of the process, marginalizing Indian Tribes.
The proposal is a reaction to bureaucratic delays. More focused solutions exist, such as prior reforms I led. These reforms streamlined federal projects for historic buildings and Indigenous restorations, balancing preservation with timely action.
The public can submit comments on these proposed regulations. While comments may not prevent the finalization of these rules, they can aid future litigation. Organizations like the National Trust for Historic Preservation may use these comments in legal challenges.
We must consider the implications as we approach the United States’ 250th anniversary. Turning away from our history is not the way to honor it. Sara C. Bronin, as the Freda H. Alverson Professor of Law at George Washington University and former chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, shares this concern.
Leave a Reply