In a recent letter, NCSHPO addressed the leaders of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources and House Natural Resources Committees, urging Congress to oppose the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) proposed rewrite of the regulations governing Section 106 in its current form — and to continue working with states and other stakeholders on targeted reforms that can improve the process without weakening the National Historic Preservation Act.
State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) are on the front lines of Section 106 every day. They understand the challenges created by large, complex, and multi-jurisdictional projects, and they see firsthand where federal review can become unnecessarily slow or unpredictable.
NCSHPO believes there are meaningful opportunities to make Section 106 work better. But changes this sweeping should not move ahead without first taking the time to hear from those who implement the process every day, consider all perspectives, and establish that the proposed changes will actually solve the problems they are intended to address.
Get the diagnosis right
The ACHP proposal would make sweeping changes to the Section 106 regulations, including significant changes to the role of SHPOs and the way historic properties are identified and evaluated.
Before making changes of that magnitude, however, there should be a clear demonstration that they will actually address the causes of delay…because getting the diagnosis right is essential to getting the reform right.
If delays are driven by issues such as inadequate federal agency staffing, late initiation of consultation, incomplete information, unclear expectations, or a lack of coordination among agencies and consulting parties, changing the underlying regulatory framework may not solve those problems. It could instead create uncertainty around existing agreements and practices, disrupt ongoing projects, and generate new disputes over the scope and application of Section 106. That is not the kind of permitting reform anyone wants.
Better opportunities to improve the process
NCSHPO’s letter identifies several approaches that warrant greater attention as Congress considers permitting reform, focused on how Section 106 operates, rather than weakening the statutory roles Congress established for states, Tribes, local governments, and the public. That distinction matters.
SHPOs bring specialized expertise, state perspective, and established relationships with federal agencies, Tribes, local governments, communities, and applicants. That expertise can help identify issues earlier, resolve disputes before they escalate, and ultimately help projects move forward.
Congress has an important role to play
The NHPA established a federal-state partnership for historic preservation. Any significant change to how that partnership operates deserves careful consideration by Congress, not simply a regulatory rewrite that diminishes the role Congress assigned to states.
We are not asking Congress to choose between preservation and project delivery — good preservation practice and effective project delivery can work together.
The goal should be a Section 106 process that is faster where it can be faster, more predictable where it can be more predictable, and better equipped to resolve real problems without creating new ones.
That means improving Section 106 with the states, not around them.
NCSHPO looks forward to continuing to work with Congress, ACHP, federal agencies, Tribes, local governments, applicants, and other stakeholders on reforms that make Section 106 more effective while preserving the balance Congress established in the NHPA.
