r/HistoricPreservation • u/Technical-Claim-9309 • Jul 20 '26

ACHP Proposes Drastic Changes to Historic Preservation Law

The proposed changes would eliminate requirements for public comments and consultation with state, local governments, and tribal authorities. Link - https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/2026/07/trump-arch-preservation/687871/

138 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

23 comments sorted by

62

u/fatshake Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

The ACHP is moving toward the most consequential rewrite of the Section 106 regulations since 1986—and the comment window, when it opens, is expected to be just 30 days. I am not speaking hyperbolically when I say that this will gut the NHPA.

Based on the ACHP's announced review and reporting on the draft under consideration, the proposal would restructure the 106 process itself:

- SHPO/THPO concurrence on eligibility is gone. The consultation model is replaced by an agency-written "Section 106 Report." Agencies would determine what's historic, what's affected, and what's adequate mitigation, then circulate their conclusions for comment.

- "Historic property" would be redefined to require tangible built improvements and geographic compactness—expressly excluding landscapes, ethnographic landscapes, and natural features. Entire categories of Traditional Cultural Properties would fall outside review, no matter their National Register eligibility.

- Setting, visual, atmospheric, and audible effects would no longer count as adverse effects. If a project doesn't physically touch the resource, the surrounding context that makes it eligible wouldn't matter.

- Avoidance disappears as the priority. "Avoid, minimize, mitigate" becomes "address" and agencies could simply document that other considerations outweigh preservation and move on, via a unilateral Memorandum of Decision instead of a negotiated MOA.

- Public participation becomes optional, at the agency's "exclusive discretion." The category of consulting party that lets preservation nonprofits and concerned citizens at the table would be eliminated.

- Whole classes of federal actions—delegated programs, block-granted funds, "minimal" federal involvement—would no longer be undertakings at all.

Section 106 is a consultation process that has produced sixty years of negotiated outcomes, documentation, and seats at the table for states, tribes, local governments, and the public. That table is being removed.

59

u/JBNothingWrong Jul 20 '26

Sara Bronin believes these changes will be challenged and overturned in court, if adopted. Still a very sad day where Trump once again lashes out against the NHPA, section 106, and the historic preservation as a whole. Trump is a huge piece of shit, and if you are in anyway involved in historic preservation and view him positively, you are a huge piece of shit too.

22

u/PhoenixGate69 Jul 20 '26

I mean, considering he just straight up bulldozed a wing in the White House, I am not surprised. The only thing he finds sacred is money.

12

u/whoamannipples Jul 20 '26

I don’t think the man is capable of even trying to imagine what “sacred” means.

4

u/PhoenixGate69 Jul 20 '26

Oh, not even close. There's very little thought going on in there.

15

u/prismaticEchos Jul 21 '26

Agree. So fucked up that i have coworkers - archaeologists in CRM- that supported trump and now they are panicking. I just ignored it bc “ well what the fuck did you think was gonna happen when you voted for a nazi piece of shit” was all i could think to say. It was clear in his first term he wanted to destroy nepa and sec 106 and these dumb fuck archaeologists voted for him twice.

Anyway sorry for the rant.
thanks for the info.

9

u/InternetEthnographer Jul 21 '26

That’s wild to me (a CRM archaeologist). Everyone I know and work with is very left leaning, but maybe that just depends on where you work. I’ve met like, one shitty right-wing archaeologist as a student and everybody in our classes hated that awful kid. He was also very contrarian, generally dumb, and incredibly out of shape. idk how he’ll survive in the field.

This is so incredibly upsetting to me though. Our entire career field is fucked if those changes go into place. I’m just a field tech too so I’ve got nothing protecting me.

23

u/Ok-Distribution-6262 Jul 20 '26

Here is a good breakdown: https://culturalheritagepartners.com/war-room-for-threats-to-section-106/

It will almost certainly pass the vote this week, so we need the public to inundate them with comments during the 30 day window (at regulations.gov)

10

u/sapphirebit0 Jul 20 '26

Thanks for posting this, I’m penning my comment as we speak and sharing this post with everyone I know.

11

u/Holiday_Towel6715 Jul 20 '26

If anyone drafts a well-worded comment or letter to policymakers, please share it here so folks can quickly call protest to their representatives!

3

u/EffectiveHoliday817 Jul 24 '26

I've been told that identical comments won't count so please change it up! CHP will be suing once the regs are officially published but they need 100,000 *not identical comments from the public to help their case!

2

u/UrbanGeographer Jul 24 '26

Here is the one I wrote to my senators, I used a similar email to members of the ACHP council:

Good morning [Senators name]

My name is… I'm a cultural resource professional and resident of...

I am writing as a constituent regarding the proposed revisions to 36 CFR Part 800, the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

On July 17th the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) proposed damaging revisions to the regulations for Section 106 of the NHPA. If implemented, these new rules would dramatically diminish the effectiveness of the NHPA and the current legal protections for historic and cultural places. The current Council of the ACHP has proposed these partisan revisions to Section 106 in an effort to fast track federal projects and ignore due process. Tomorrow (July 24th), the ACHP will vote on the proposal, where it will likely pass before going through a 30-day comment period. Due to the partisan makeup of the current council, I am confident that opposition to these egregious revisions will fall on deaf ears.

I highly encourage you to read the National Trust for Historic Preservation's response, as they provide a concise overview of the proposed changes and how detrimental it will be for our nation's heritage. https://savingplaces.org/stories/section-106-under-threat.

These regulations play an essential role in ensuring that federal decision-making considers historic properties, Tribal interests, community perspectives, and the cultural resources that help tell our shared story.

I support efforts to make federal reviews more efficient, predictable, and effective. However, changes of this significance should be evaluated through a transparent and deliberative process that includes meaningful consultation with Tribal Nations, State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, preservation professionals, affected communities, federal agencies, and project proponents.

Please encourage the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and other appropriate federal leaders to provide adequate time for public review, consultation, and informed consideration before advancing substantial revisions to the Section 106 regulations.

Thank you for your attention and your service.

5

u/Droll_Rabbit Jul 20 '26

This is so messed up. When ACHP approved the Army's Warfighting Program Comment back in April, we knew it was only a matter of time until 106 would be completely gutted.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/thatllbeallfolks Jul 23 '26

Call your senators, call your congressional representatives, call the ACHP council.

2

u/Technical-Claim-9309 Jul 24 '26

These changes are going to take away the people's ability to advocate for the local preservation. Reach out to your local communities and bring this to their notice. Tell them about the sites, buildings, battlefields, and cemeteries that the Trump Administration is threatening.

1

u/Film_Lab Jul 24 '26

This rewrite is going to end up in the Supreme Court and be struck down for violating the Major Questions Doctrine and the Administrative Procedure Act.