What is the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation?

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an independent federal agency authorized in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The ACHP advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation policy, ensuring that historic preservation is considered in federal project planning and implementation. The ACHP serves as the main policy advisor for federal historic preservation efforts and advocates for the integration of historic values in federal decision-making through processes such as Section 106 of the NHPA.

What is Section 106?

Section 106 is a part of the NHPA that requires federal agencies to consider how their projects might affect historic properties. It involves identification of historic sites and places, determining if the project could harm them, and considering how impacts may be avoided or minimized.  The whole process requires consultation with local, state and tribal officials with opportunities for public input. 

What is happening to the Section 106 process right now?

Revising Regulations 

The ACHP is completely revising the regulations that implement the Section 106 process. Under the proposed revisions, federal agencies would have unilateral control over undertakings in which they have any involvement such as land jurisdiction, permitting, or funding. The proposed changes would largely eliminate: (1) local, state, tribal, and public participation in identifying historic properties; (2) the process by which it is determined what constitutes harm to them; and (3) seeking input about ways to protect important historic sites and places from potential harm or destruction due to the agencies’ projects. As stated in a recent webinar, ‘you won’t know what’s happening until the bulldozers show up!’

Redefining Historic Property

The draft changes would also redefine what is considered a “historic property” according to the NHPA.  Currently, historic properties include much more than buildings and structures – they can include rural landscapes, sacred places, historic trails, historic districts, archaeological sites and other places essential to the nation’s and local communities’ histories and cultural identities. Under the revised regulations, historic properties would include only those that represent “tangible human improvements” (structures) and only those that are “geographically compact”.

“Adverse effects” would also be redefined to include only those that directly impact a historic property (structure) – impacts to the property’s historic setting would no longer count – and only those effects caused directly by the federal agency itself would be considered.  Further, the proposal leaves identification of historic properties almost entirely up to agency discretion, such as determining whether or not properties would be harmed, and deciding how (or if) to avoid or minimize harm. 

Limiting Responsibility for Stewardship

There are many more destructive elements of the proposed revisions, but in essence, the stripped-down requirements aim to place the cost and time impacts to federal agencies’ projects above their responsibilities for stewardship of the nation’s most irreplaceable icons of our shared national stories. 

What is at stake and what are the next steps?

Historic sites and places that are important to you, your family, your community and the country as whole, are more at risk now than at any time since the NHPA was enacted 60 years ago.  On July 27, the ACHP voted to accept its new draft of Section 106 regulatory language.  The proposed revisions will now advance to the Office of Interagency and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review. Once OIRA has reviewed the proposal, it will be published in the Federal Register for a 30-day public review period.