Changes in Historic Preservation Riles Critics

The Trump administration redirected its approach, realizing that demolishing historic landmarks using bulldozers and blue paint would be too time-consuming. Recently, a federal historic preservation agency made a decision to alter its regulations significantly. This change contradicts the agency’s congressional mandate to support the preservation of historic sites, posing a threat to landmarks in communities everywhere.

Having served as the last Senate-confirmed chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, I am aware of the implications. Currently, I am working on the National Preservation Atlas, an interactive map of designated historic sites. The potential impact of this decision is a concern.

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation enforces Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This regulation affects around 120,000 federal undertakings annually, which includes construction, funding, and issuing permits for activities on federal lands.

The new rules would make federal permits for activities such as surface mining and fossil-fuel networks more accessible by protecting only geographically compact sites. Important sites, including archaeological ones and those significant to Native Tribes, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska Natives, could lose protection. Such changes may lead to developments like pipelines crossing historically significant battlefields.

Additionally, the proposal suggests exempting many projects from Section 106’s review, particularly state and local government undertakings. This change would allow large infrastructure projects to proceed without scrutiny, potentially leading to rapid neighborhood transformations akin to mid-century urban renewals.

Audible, visual, and atmospheric effects on historic sites would be minimized under the new rules. For instance, construction noise from Trump’s planned arch would impact military families at Arlington National Cemetery for extended periods.

A crucial element of Section 106, mandatory consultation with stakeholders, is under threat. Traditionally, this process involves Indian Tribes, local officials, and others with vested interests, facilitating time and cost savings by directing agencies away from harming historic sites.

The proposed changes allow federal agencies to limit consultations, marginalizing the input from stakeholders and Indian Tribes, which contravenes legal agreements treating them as sovereign nations.

This overreaction stems from frustrations with inherent bureaucratic delays. Improved processes emphasized energy efficiency and renewable energy integration for historic buildings and exempted specific restorations from review, showing positive collaboration within regulatory frameworks.

The proposed regulations prioritize streamlining large-scale, potentially damaging projects, ignoring the preservation of vulnerable historic locations.

As public commentary opens for these changes, those invested in historic preservation should voice their concerns. Tools like the National Preservation Atlas and the National Register can aid in identifying impacted resources, potentially contributing to future litigations by preservation groups.

Sara C. Bronin, Freda H. Alverson Professor of Law at George Washington University, Founder of the National Preservation Atlas, and former chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.