This message to ACRA members is authored by ACRA President Shawn Patch.
By now, most of you have heard that the acting leadership of the ACHP announced on Friday it is moving forward with a vote on changes to the 800 regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. They are taking this action despite earlier promises to conduct a deliberative process that would engage all the members of the Council in a robust debate.
ACRA is still analyzing the proposed regulation. But a cursory review shows that they would fundamentally change Section 106, undermining decades of collaborative work that created a process that balances preservation with development.
In its place the Council is proposing a “process” that eliminates much of what makes section 106 work: collaboration, consultation and engagement. It would make S/THPO consultation entirely optional and would allow federal agencies to completely bypass public consultation. It would allow agencies to discount any indirect impacts of federal undertakings. And it gives agencies the license to state that assessing the effects of their undertakings are not worth the cost.
The Council claims that these changes are meant to accelerate the process. They will do no such thing. By allowing agencies to ignore states, communities, tribes and the public, their process will invite more litigation, more delay, and more confusion.
We know the truth: while imperfect, the Section 106 process leads to better outcomes that take into account the effects of federal undertakings on historic properties. And it does so without delaying the overwhelming majority of projects. ACRA will continue to advocate for commonsense revisions to the process that improve it while staying true to the intent of the NHPA.
I know many of you are deeply concerned about this proposed rule and its impact on your firms. I share those concerns. But this is not a time for despair. It’s a time for action.
ACRA’s Executive Committee is meeting today to discuss our strategy. And we have been in constant communication with our preservation partners all through the weekend to discuss next steps.
Over the coming days and weeks, we will need the support and active engagement of every CRM firm. Your voice matters – whether it’s sending comments to the Council, contacting your elected federal representatives, writing to your local media about how these changes will deprive you and your neighbors of a voice in what happens to the places that make your community unique, and so much more.
ACRA will provide updates, resources and talking points to help you speak up, and we will soon convene a special ACRA Hot Topic to discuss the changes in more detail. Stay tuned to ACRASphere for more information as we have it.
While things may seem dire, one thing I know about this industry is that we have the passion, resourcefulness and courage to do what’s right. That’s why I am proud to serve as ACRA’s President.
Well said Shawn! Thank you for focusing less on despair and more on what we can do to ensure the process is protected!
How do I get involved to support 106?
Hi Diane! We will be sharing more resources in the coming days and weeks for you and others to take action, especially when the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register for a comment period. Stay tuned!
What Might Not Be Here Today? The proposed Part 800 rules make us look at the places around us in a new way. What buildings, parks, roads, and historic sites might be gone if these rules had been in place years ago?
Most federal projects would probably still have moved forward. But many of the historic places saved or improved through Section 106 might look very different today. Some buildings may have been torn down instead of reused. Highways and rail lines may have cut through historic areas. Agencies may have had an easier time rejecting protections for archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, public access, and nearby communities.
In projects such as the TWA Flight Center, St. Elizabeths, Nike Site Summit, Kalaeloa Heritage Park, and the Guam-CNMI military relocation, records show what agencies first planned to demolish or damage. Section 106 review changed those plans. The projects still happened, but historic places were saved, reused, moved, protected, or made open to the public. Under the proposed rules, many of those results might never have happened.
I feel like if we take these changes out of the abstract, and communicate what that looks like in terms of what we have now would have been lost, might generate interest.
Thank you for standing firm in the fight to preserve U.S. Cultural Resources
Thank you for this statement Shawn. We will be standing by to support as soon as those resources and guidance are distributed.
Where can we find the proposed rewrite of 36 CFR Part 800? I am not finding it online and would like to review the draft.
Because the drafts we have seen are unofficial, we are not able to share them directly through ACRA. We will share them as soon as we are able!
Thank you Shawn. To say I am appalled by these proposals doesn’t begin to cover my feelings. I am pleased that ACRA is fully involved in the situation. I will do whatever I can to help and look forward to making use of ACRA’s materials as soon as they become available. I urge everyone to review the National Trust materials. I also echo the recommendation to contact your congressional representatives directly. We know that this is effective, and between us we should be able to generate questions from quite a number of representatives