A Blow to Historic Preservation: Preserve RI’s Response to the ACHP's Vote on Section 106

Preserve Rhode Island (Preserve RI) is profoundly disappointed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's (ACHP) July 24 vote to advance sweeping revisions to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 36 CFR Part 800. The tools our nation relies on to protect its irreplaceable historic and cultural resources are under direct threat — and once again, the process by which that threat was advanced should trouble anyone who cares about transparent, accountable government.

What Happened

On July 17, the ACHP's Vice Chairman circulated a draft rewrite of the Section 106 regulations to Council members late on a Friday afternoon, asking for an internal vote by email within one week. That timeline was a marked departure from the deliberative approach the Council itself had endorsed only a month earlier, when it adopted a resolution calling for a 30-day staff timeline and a 60-day comment window before any changes moved forward. Despite objections — including a formal "no" vote from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and from the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO) — the Council voted on July 24 to move the proposal forward as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It now heads to interagency review at the Office of Management and Budget before it can be published in the Federal Register for public comment.

The accelerated, closed-door nature of this vote is a crucial component to this story of de-democratizing the preservation process. Preservation organizations, Tribal Nations, State Historic Preservation Officers, and legal experts were given no meaningful opportunity to review a proposal of this magnitude, consult their own leadership, or weigh in before Council members were asked to cast their votes.

 

What the Changes Would Do

While the full text of the draft has not been officially released, versions have circulated widely, and preservation organizations who reviewed it have outlined its likely effects:

Early consultation becomes optional, not required. Current regulations require federal agencies to consult with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), local governments, and the public from the outset of a project. Under the proposed rule, agencies could choose to consult early only if they determine doing so would serve their own purposes — turning a mandatory partnership into a discretionary courtesy.

Consultation shifts from collaboration to after-the-fact commentary. Rather than the current four-step process — where SHPOs, THPOs, Tribes, and other consulting parties help shape an agency's understanding of a project's effects from the beginning — agencies would instead prepare a single, largely completed report identifying historic properties, assessing effects, and proposing mitigation before ever circulating it for comment. Consulting parties would be relegated to reacting to conclusions the agency has already reached, rather than helping to form them.

Authority consolidates within the acting federal agency. The independent expertise that SHPOs, THPOs, Tribes, and local governments bring to the table becomes advisory at best. The agency responsible for carrying out the very undertaking under review would hold substantially more control over determining its own project's impact on historic and cultural resources — a serious conflict of interest built into the heart of the process.

Tribal Nations and THPOs are especially hard-hit. NATHPO has been blunt in its assessment: these changes were advanced without giving Tribal Nations a genuine chance to review the proposal, consult with their own leadership and legal counsel, or make their voices heard before a vote was forced. For Tribal Nations, Section 106 consultation is not a bureaucratic formality — it is one of the few enforceable mechanisms protecting sacred sites, burial grounds, and cultural landscapes from federal undertakings, including energy and infrastructure projects. Weakening it does not just slow down paperwork; it diminishes a trust and treaty responsibility the federal government owes to Tribal Nations.

 

Why This Matters — Everywhere, Including Rhode Island

Section 106 currently touches roughly 120,000 federal undertakings a year and governs the treatment of more than a million historic properties nationwide, whether listed on the National Register or simply eligible for it. Rhode Island's dense fabric of Colonial, maritime, industrial, and Indigenous heritage sites exist because a review process — however imperfect — has for decades given preservation offices, Tribal Nations, and local communities a real seat at the table before a federal action moves forward. Undermine that process nationally, and Rhode Island's own historic neighborhoods, mill villages, and Narragansett and Wampanoag cultural sites lose a layer of protection along with everyone else's.

We do not dispute that the current process has real problems. Delays, underfunding of SHPO and THPO offices, and inconsistent agency practices are legitimate frustrations, and we've heard them echoed even by preservation advocates themselves. But the answer to a slow, underfunded process is to fix the process — to properly staff and fund the offices doing this work — not to write the public, Tribal Nations, and preservation professionals out of the conversation altogether.

 

What Comes Next

The fight is not over. The draft rule must still clear interagency review at OMB before it is published in the Federal Register, and that publication will open a formal public comment period. Preserve Rhode Island will be watching for that Federal Register notice, and when it appears, we will be urging our members, partners, and every Rhode Islander who cares about our historic and cultural resources to make their voices heard.

We stand with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, NATHPO, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, and preservation partners across the country in opposing this rushed, closed-door rewrite of one of the nation's most important tools for protecting historic places. We will not let our shared heritage be fast-tracked into obscurity without a fight.

Preserve Rhode Island will continue to monitor this rulemaking process and will share updates and action alerts as they become available.