New Regulations Threaten Protection of Historic Sites

The Trump administration’s recent actions put numerous historic landmarks at risk. The federal agency tasked with historic preservation has decided to overhaul its regulations, jeopardizing these sites across the United States. This is a significant departure from the agency’s mission to protect these sites.

Sara C. Bronin, who previously chaired the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, highlights the situation. She is also developing the National Preservation Atlas, a tool to map designated historic sites. The changes could devastate many irreplaceable landmarks.

Understanding Section 106

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation enforces Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This process ensures federal projects consider impacts on historic properties. Approximately 120,000 federal undertakings a year undergo this review, ranging from construction projects to permits for resource extraction. Section 106 mandates that agencies evaluate and mitigate potential damage to properties listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

Impacts of the New Regulations

The proposed changes will narrow the protection scope. Federal permits may more easily facilitate projects like surface mining and fossil-fuel networks. The regulations redefine which sites qualify for protection, excluding those that are not “geographically compact.” This would mean many archaeological sites and areas significant to Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives lose protection. For example, a project could now cross the Gettysburg Battlefield without thorough oversight.

Additionally, some projects previously reviewed under Section 106 will now be exempt. Exemptions apply to state and local government activities, significantly affecting infrastructure development, similar to the urban renewal projects of the past. Even projects not exempted from review will see impacts redefined, affecting outcomes.

Compromised Consultation and Protection

The proposal also diminishes the consultation aspect of Section 106. Previously, diverse stakeholders, including Native groups and local officials, participated in the development process. This element ensured projects were sympathetic to historical contexts. Under new regulations, agencies can bypass comprehensive consultation, undermining tribal sovereignty and future project partnerships.

This shift addresses frustrations over delays but overlooks better solutions that preserve the essence of historic places. Instead of opting for hasty changes, previous reforms streamlined processes without sacrificing protections. These reforms included energy-efficient adaptations and expedited reviews in particular contexts, showcasing a balanced preservation approach.

Public Action and Future Implications

The public should voice concerns during the proposal’s comment period. Utilizing resources like the National Preservation Atlas, individuals can highlight threatened sites. While comments alone may not halt these regulatory changes, they form a foundation for possible legal action.

Sara C. Bronin emphasizes the urgency of maintaining our historic legacy, urging us not to forsake it during the upcoming milestone of the nation’s 250th birthday. As threats grow, vigilance and advocacy remain essential.

Sara C. Bronin is a professor at George Washington University and founder of the National Preservation Atlas. Formerly, she chaired the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.