[MassHistPres] Section 106 threatened

[Sara Wermiel]

Preservationists should be aware of changes the Trump administration,
through the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, is proposing for
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA).
Section 106 is the part of the NHPA that requires federal agencies to
consider the effects of federal undertakings on historic properties, and
requires a review process, and consultation with affected parties and the
public, in order to avoid or minimize harm to such properties.

 

A recent CBS News report provides a good summary of the issue: "A federal
advisory council filled with Trump appointees is poised to gut a federal
review process that assesses the impact of new projects on historical
properties before they are approved and remove the requirement for public
comment, according to multiple sources." Council handpicked by Trump to gut
review process of historic-preservation projects - CBS News
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/council-handpicked-by-trump-to-gut-review-proc
ess-of-historic-preservation-projects/> 

 

Several news sources report the reason for the ACHP proposed changes is to
remove obstacles Trump has faced to his plans to remake Washington, DC.
However, the proposed changes would impact the entire country. I have heard
commentators, including preservationists, say Section 106 could be improved,
although I have not heard how or why. To the common charge that Section 106
reviews delay projects, in fact, the vast majority of projects are quickly
approved. In Massachusetts in FY 2025, the Massachusetts Historical
Commission reviewed 7,807 federal projects; of these, only 9 required
Memoranda of Agreement. The number of MOAs in prior years, out of thousands
of MHC reviews, were 11 and 12. And this is case around the U.S., according
to a presenter at a NTHP webinar on Section 106.

 

The NTHP is leading a movement to oppose these changes. This webpage
explains the changes and the likely impact, lists things individuals can do,
and includes links to resources: Section 106 Under Threat | National Trust
for Historic Preservation <https://savingplaces.org/section106#webinar> 

 

According to the timeline on the NTHP webpage (see above), the proposed
changes are now under federal review but soon will be published for public
comment. That is when you should be prepared to send comments! You can sign
up for alerts. But even now, you could write to your members of Congress and
others about how Section 106 has positively impacted historic resources in
your community. The NTHP is collecting examples, which you can submit
through a form on their website. 

 

Let me add, regarding examples: if Section 106 is working properly, there
should be no dramatic instances of saving historic sites from a wrecking
ball. Rather, whoever is responsible for implementing federally-supported
projects should plan the projects to avoid harm. For example, MassDOT
installed a suicide barrier on the NR-eligible French King Bridge over the
Connecticut River; it was designed to minimize its visual impact on the
bridge and retain motorists' views of the river, while it discouraged people
from jumping off the bridge. Section 106 success stories can show how proper
advance planning along with community input resulted in projects that
protected historic resources.

 

Sara E. Wermiel

Historian of technology/historic preservation consulting

Jamaica Plain, MA

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260830/d63ce4b3/attachment.html>