Historic Preservation Agency Overhaul Threatens Landmarks

The Trump administration’s recent action poses significant risks to historic landmarks across the nation. The federal historic preservation agency has decided to overhaul its regulations, putting countless historic sites in danger. This decision contradicts the agency’s congressional mandate to promote the preservation of historic places.

Sara C. Bronin, former chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and current founder of the National Preservation Atlas, highlighted the gravity of this situation. Bronin’s efforts in creating an interactive map of designated historic sites aim to raise awareness of the impact of these regulatory changes.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation administers Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This act applies to around 120,000 federal agency undertakings annually, including construction, funding, and permits for natural resource extraction from federal land. The process ensures that agencies evaluate potential negative effects on historic properties listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

However, the new rules intend to limit protections only to sites that are ‘geographically compact.’ This change risks leaving many significant archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, and areas of importance to Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives unprotected. Such a decision could lead to detrimental developments on sacred grounds, such as the Gettysburg Battlefield.

The proposals also exempt many undertakings from Section 106, especially by state and local governments. This exemption could further streamline federally funded projects like state highway constructions and local road expansions, bypassing scrutiny and potentially obliterating neighborhoods.

Section 106 has been effective due to its requirement for consultation with diverse stakeholders, including Indian Tribes and local officials. The revised approach drastically undermines these consultations, allowing federal agencies to overlook most parties until the end stages of planning. This exclusion compromises the legal standing of Indian Tribes, recognized as sovereign nations, and diminishes informed decision-making.

The frustration over delays in agency decision-making prompted this proposal, but there exist better alternatives to enhance efficiency. Previous measures under Bronin’s leadership had streamlined processes without endangering historic sites. Initiatives allowed the conversion of historic buildings to housing, improvements in energy efficiency, and the restoration of properties important to Indigenous peoples post-disasters, balancing preservation with progress.

The council’s new direction instead prioritizes expediting harmful projects at the expense of vulnerable historic places. Public comments on these proposed regulations are encouraged to highlight the risks and potentially support litigation by groups like the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Bronin reinforces the importance of public involvement, utilizing resources such as the National Preservation Atlas and National Register to understand affected areas. The outcome of these regulations must not be a step away from preserving our shared history.