The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) informed Council members Friday that it plans to hold an unassembled meeting of the ACHP to vote on proposed changes to the 800 regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Council members are being asked to vote by email on or before July 24, 2026. If the Council approves the proposal, it will be published in the Federal Register and open for public comments.
ACRA will provide more information on these developments as we get it.
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed regulatory changes to the 36 CFR part 800 regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The voting deadline of July 24,2026 presents an exceptionally narrow window for the council members and affected stakeholders to adequately review, analyze, and comprehend the full scope of proposed changes. Regulatory adjustments to historic preservation frameworks require thorough consideration to ensure proper protection of heritage assets and to prevent unintended administrative burdens. Voting on an un-assembled basis with such limited notice undermines a transparent and robust deliberative process. I strongly urge the council to vote against the current proposal or delay the vote until a more reasonable time frame for evaluation and public engagement is provided.
Hi Lisa! We encourage you to send this to the ACHP. ACRA does not have a voting seat on the Council.
As a professional archaeologist who has dedicated over 30 years identifying and documenting this country’s history as found in the ground in the archaeological record, Section 106 is the avenue that allows US to document our history. Much of our history lies forgotten, held in the ground. On any given un-investigated spot across this country, no one knows if an important archaeological site is there until it is exposed, either intentionally or unintentionally. Section 106 is the only way we currently have to systematically find and document our in-ground history in areas that are endangered by ground-disturbing actions funded or permitted by our federal government. If you vote for these proposed changes to Section 106, you are knowingly throwing away historical story after story of this country. The bones of our ancestors in lost cemeteries will be dug up and destroyed, Civil War battlefields and trenches will be razed, Native American mounds and villages will be destroyed, and we’ll never know about the existence and subsequent loss of such important historical properties if you choose to throw away this process by supporting these proposed changes. Section 106 can be changed to make the process far smoother, faster, and more efficient, but these proposed changes do not do that; rather, they basically eliminate the process on behalf of those who care far less about our history than they do about profit.
Scot, we encourage you to send this to the ACHP! ACRA does not have a voting seat on the Council.
I am a professional archaeologist who has dedicated nearly 25 years working to learn, preserve, and educate others about this country’s history as part of the archaeological record. Section 106 is what allows us to do our jobs, jobs that we all take immense pride in. So much knowledge of our collective history is buried underground. In so many places in this country, no one knows if an archaeological site is there until it is exposed, either intentionally or unintentionally. Section 106 is the only way we currently have to systematically find and document our buried history in areas that are endangered by ground-disturbing actions funded or permitted by our federal government. If you vote for these proposed changes to Section 106, you are knowingly and willfully throwing away history. The remains of our ancestors in unidentified cemeteries will be dug up and destroyed, Civil War battlefields and earthworks will be razed and paved over, Native American mounds and villages will be destroyed, and we’ll never know about the loss of such important historical properties if you choose to throw away this process by supporting these proposed changes. Section 106 can be changed to make the process far smoother, faster, and more efficient, but these proposed changes do not do that; rather, they basically eliminate the process on behalf of those who care far less about our history than they do about profit.
Gretchen, we encourage you to send this to the ACHP! ACRA does not have a voting seat on the Council.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
I have worked as a professional archaeologist for more than 15 years and have also served as a public school teacher for the past 8 years. My experience in both cultural resource management and education has shown me firsthand the importance of preserving our nation’s archaeological sites, historic places, and cultural heritage for current and future generations.
Section 106 provides a critical process for identifying, evaluating, and considering the effects of federally funded or permitted projects on historic properties and cultural resources. Weakening these regulations risks the irreversible loss of archaeological sites, Tribal cultural places, historic landscapes, and other irreplaceable resources before they can be properly identified or considered. Once these resources are destroyed, they cannot be recreated or replaced.
Beyond the loss of physical sites, reducing the effectiveness of the Section 106 review process diminishes opportunities for meaningful consultation with Tribes, descendant communities, State Historic Preservation Offices, and the public. These consultations are essential to ensuring that development proceeds responsibly while respecting our shared cultural heritage.
As both an archaeologist and an educator, I believe preserving cultural resources is an investment in our collective history and in the education of future generations. Archaeological sites and historic places provide invaluable opportunities for research, learning, and public engagement. Weakening the protections afforded by Section 106 would have lasting negative consequences for these resources and for the communities that value them.
I respectfully urge the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to reject these proposed changes and preserve the integrity of the Section 106 review process.
Hi Kathryn! We encourage you to send this to the ACHP as ACRA does not have a seat on the Council.