A mock-up of President Trump’s proposed triumphal arch was displayed during the state fair on D.C.’s National Mall in June. Approval for the real arch requires a historic preservation review.
The Trump administration aims to bypass a hurdle in its arch project by weakening federal oversight of construction affecting historic sites. Critics warn this could harm the preservation of historic and cultural places nationwide.
“Every American with a place in their heart that is historic or culturally significant should be concerned about weakening historic preservation protections,” said Greg Werkheiser, founding partner at Cultural Heritage Partners.
The National Register of Historic Places lists over 100,000 properties, including diverse forms like houses, burial grounds, and landscapes.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to assess how new projects might affect historic places. This review process involves interested parties such as preservation groups and local and tribal governments.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, responsible for overseeing Section 106, is now predominantly composed of Trump appointees. They are considering major changes to the process.
Sara Bronin, former advisory council chair, highlighted the influence of Trump-appointed members and warned of potential actions that could bypass necessary reviews.
Proposed changes include redefining what is considered historic, making public comments optional, and removing consultation requirements with Native American tribes. Werkheiser emphasized the exclusion of public input in decisions affecting historic resources.
Council members had one week to vote on the revisions. Several more steps, including a 30-day public comment period, are required for the changes to take effect.
Werkheiser predicted legal challenges, describing the council’s actions as a prelude to litigation to protect American history.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation argued significant sites like the Grand Canyon might be excluded under new guidelines.
After World War II, widespread construction led to public outcry, prompting Congress to pass the National Historic Preservation Act. The advisory council memo criticizes delays caused by current Section 106 processes and suggests revisions to improve effectiveness.
The new rules would narrow the scope of protected sites, excluding landscape features, and redefine what qualifies as an adverse effect.
Bronin warned that changes could allow destructive projects like state highway widening without proper reviews.
The proposed revisions would eliminate public comment requirements and alter community involvement in federal decisions.
“Consent of the governed is being replaced with my way or the highway,” wrote Charles Birnbaum, The Cultural Landscape Foundation president.
The Cultural Landscape Foundation litigated against expedited reviews, challenging administration-driven projects like the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool’s repainting.
Trump’s D.C. projects face opposition and lawsuits from preservation groups.
Simplifying the Section 106 review could expedite Trump’s projects, such as the proposed arch near Arlington National Cemetery.
“Although focusing solely on D.C.’s landmarks is narrow, the arch proposal exemplifies what’s at stake,” said Bronin.
Historic preservation groups opposed the swift voting process for changes, claiming it limits public input.
Elizabeth Merrit, deputy general counsel for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, argued against changes, which may cause confusion and undermine successful consultations.
Werkheiser warned changes could be detrimental for developers seeking information and certainty early on, citing the existing Section 106 process as effective.
He urged those against the changes to contact legislators during the public comment period, emphasizing bipartisan support for preservation.
“Historic preservation is a bipartisan issue that unites community-oriented individuals in all states,” said Bronin.
Congress might intervene, strengthening Section 106 protections. Senate Democrats opposed changes, calling for collaboration with Tribes and states.
Leave a Reply