Posts

Posted on

Preservation Action Strongly Opposes Provisions that Weaken Historic Preservation Protections in Permitting Reform Bill

Just before recessing for month of October, a bipartisan group of Senators unveiled the American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (S. 5653). This bill proposes major changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) with the goal of accelerating the permitting process for infrastructure projects. Title III of the Energy and Natural Resources portion deals with historic preservation. This bill constitutes the most significant changes to the National Historic Preservation Act and the Section 106 process in the law’s history. It would substantially weaken protections for historic places under Section 106 , curtailing consultation with State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, limiting what constitutes an undertaking, imposing rigid deadlines, and narrowing adverse effects. Preservation Action strongly opposes the provisions that weaken Section 106.

The bill’s text is available here.

The bill was introduced by Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), the chairs and ranking members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Following the bill’s introduction the Senate adjourned for the month of October. While the House and Senate out until after the midterm elections, the Senate is expected to move very quickly on this bill when they return on Nov. 9th. This bill was largely negotiated behind closed doors and Senators are looking to fast track the bill without a usual committee hearings process. Your voice will be critical over the next 5 weeks!

Here are some of the harmful changes that undermine the Section 106 process:

  • The bill compresses and weakens the consultation process with State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, Tribal Nations, and local governments. The bill inserts rigid deadlines regardless of the projects complexity, would make consultation optional when determining an area of potential effect, and worse it effectively gives federal agencies the final word during disputes by deciding that other considerations outweigh historic preservation.
  • The bill narrows what constitutes a federal undertaking, limiting which projects would even require review. The changes would exclude projects where the only federal involvement is federal financial assistance, like grants or loans. It would also exclude projects where the agency doesn’t exercise “substantial control” — a new, undefined threshold that could let agencies avoid review.
  • The bill narrowly redefines what is considered an “adverse effect” on a historic property. The bill explicitly excludes many visual, atmospheric, and audible effects unless they “significantly” diminish the historic property, an undefined threshold. The bill would limit adverse effects to those that are “reasonably foreseeable”, defined as a “a reasonably close causal relationship” to the undertaking. This gives much more latitude to federal agencies to determine what is an adverse effect.
  • The bill dramatically limits judicial review. The ability of project opponents would be severely limited, the bill would restrict who can file claims, and imposes a 150 day deadline to bring certain claims.
  • The bill imposes harsh leverage over State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. The bill would increase evaluations by Interior of SHPOs to every two years, threatens to revoke federal funding if deadlines aren’t meant, and even includes the ability of the Interior Department to assume the role of the THPO.
  • Exempts certain categories of transmission, pipeline, and nationwide permitting activities from Section 106 review.

The bill also includes some provisions that the historic preservation community has supported to improve the process like designating lead agencies and increased investments in the Historic Preservation Fund. The bill would reauthorize the HPF at $200 million annually through 2036 and provide $20 million for THPOs to develop a database for Tribal records. While positive, the bill only authorizes the HPF at $200 million, but does not appropriate any additional funding.

Preservation Action continues to analyze the bill, including provisions in other sections that could impact historic preservation. We are also working to compare the changes included in the permitting bill to those proposed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in July. Importantly, while changes proposed by the ACHP to Section 106 regulations could be litigated in court or undone by future administrations, changes made to statute like those in the permitting bill would be far more difficult to change.

Preservation Action is urging Congress to reject the provisions in the Senate permitting bill that weaken protections for historic resources. We stand ready to work with members of Congress on positive changes that strengthen Section 106 and actually improve efficiency.

With a vote expected as soon as Nov. 9th, time is of the essence. We need your voice to fight back against threats to critical historic preservation protections.

Take Action!

Reach out to your members of Congress, especially Senators. Let them know the devastating impact the bill will have on historic resources in your community and urge them to OPPOSE the permitting reform bill as currently drafted!

Call your members of Congress!

Call the U.S Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your Representative or Senator’s office. Identify yourself as a constituent and urge them to oppose the permitting reform bill introduced in the Senate as currently drafted.

Here’s a short phone script to assist in your outreach.

Phone script

Hello, my name is [NAME], and I’m a constituent from [CITY/TOWN]. I’m calling to ask [Senator/Representative NAME] to oppose the Senate permitting reform bill, the American Affordability and Jobs Act (S. 5653), as currently drafted.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act strikes a balance, keeping infrastructure projects moving while protecting the places our communities care about. This bill would cut state, Tribal and local voices out of the process, allowing federal agencies to make unilateral decisions from Washington with little to no consultation.

This bill won’t make permitting faster. It will mean more conflict and more delay, while leaving historic places that drive tourism and local economies unprotected. The bill was written behind closed doors and is being rushed to a vote without a committee hearing.

There are ways to make the Section 106 process more efficient, but cutting the public out of the process and putting our communities’ historic resources at risk are not how we achieve it. Therefore I urge you to reject the Senate permitting reform bill. Thank you.

Email your members of Congress!

If you have a contact in your Representative or Senator’s office, reach out to them directly. If you need assistance reaching congressional staff, contact Preservation Action at rnaylor@preservationaction.org.

You can also check out our latest action alert to easily edit and send a letter to your members of Congress today!

Additional Resources:

Posted on

Action Alert: Urge Your Representative and Senators to Sign Bipartisan Letter Opposing ACHP’s Harmful Section 106 Proposal

Act Now: Urge Your Representative and Senators to Join Bipartisan Letter Opposing the ACHP’s Devastating Section 106 Proposal

Join us in urging your members of Congress to show their opposition to the ACHP’s harmful proposal. House and Senate leaders are currently circulating a bipartisan, bicameral dear colleague letter opposing the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) proposed rewrite of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act’s implementing regulations.

The ACHP’s proposed rulemaking would completely dismantle the framework that has protected historic places nationwide for six decades. As the letter highlights, the revisions would shift authority away from collaborative consultation with state, tribal and local experts toward unilateral agency control, make public comment optional, limit consideration of adverse effects, and redefine what is considered a historic property. The letter also questions the rushed and nontransparent process in which the proposal was considered. The letter goes on to say the ACHP’s proposal rejects decades of Section 106 success stories, the importance of historic sites across the country, and Tribal sovereignty and urges the ACHP to reconsider.

The House letter is led by Rep. Sharice Davids (D-KS), Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-NM), Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM), Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), and Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA). While the Senate letter is being circulated by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM).

TAKE ACTION!

Reach out to your members of Congress and urge them express their opposition to the ACHP proposal and sign-on to bipartisan letter TODAY!

If you have a personal contact in your Representative or Senator’s Washington D.C. or District/State office, contact that person directly. If you need help finding a direct contact in your member’s office, reach out to Rob Naylor at rnaylor@preservationaction.org.

Urge your Representative and Senators to sign-on to the bipartisan letter led by Rep. Davids and Fitzpatrick in the House and Sen. Heinrich in the Senate opposing the ACHP’s harmful Section 106 proposal.

Offices can reach out to Eric Dunay in Rep. Davids’ office (Eric.Dunay@mail.house.gov) or Maya Herrmann in Sen. Heinrich’s office (Maya_Hermann@energy.senate.gov) to sign-on or for more information.

You can also check out our latest action alert to easily edit and send a letter to your members of Congress today!

Take Action!

Posted on

Preservation Action Urges Congress to Oppose ACHP’s Proposed Overhaul of Section 106 Regulations

Preservation Action sent a letter to the leadership of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Natural Resources, urging lawmakers to exercise their oversight authority and oppose the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) proposal that completely overhauls Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).

For sixty years, Section 106 has provided a framework for balancing the advancement of federal projects with the responsibility of federal agencies to “take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties”. While we support thoughtful reforms to Section 106 that help ensure a predictable and efficient process, as we state in the letter “the ACHP’s proposed rewrite would fundamentally upend the Section 106 process, goes far beyond congressional intent, and would actually lead to more delays and litigation. Additionally, the manner in which the proposed rule was developed – disregarding ACHP’s own established procedures and failing to allow for necessary and legally required consultation – raises serious concerns.”

The letter highlights some of our principal concerns:

  • The proposed rule eliminates meaningful consultation with States and Tribes and cuts local governments and the public our entirely.
  • Federal agencies would no longer be required to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm.
  • If the objective is certainty, the proposed rule moves in the wrong direction.
  • ACHP should not rewrite the statute through regulation.
  • The breadth of concern surrounding this proposal should give Congress pause.

We are urging the Senate Energy Natural Resources and House Natural Resources Committee to exercise their oversight authority and oppose the ACHP’s proposal as drafted and to hold hearings examining both the substance of the proposed changes and the process used to develop them.

Check out our complete letter to learn more!

Posted on

Historic Preservation Caucus Expands Leadership Team to Include Bipartisan Vice-Chairs

July 31, 2026

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Preservation Action is excited to announce that the Congressional Historic Preservation Caucus is expanding its bipartisan leadership team with the appointment of Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI) and Rep. Mike Carey (R-OH) as the first Vice Chairs in the Caucus’s history.

Magaziner and Carey join Caucus Co-Chairs Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) and Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) in leading the bipartisan group of lawmakers dedicated to advancing policies that preserve and revitalize America’s historic places. As we commemorate this year’s 250th anniversary of the founding of America, this announcement reflects both members’ strong commitment to protecting the historic and cultural resources that help tell our country’s story and demonstrates historic preservation’s broad, bipartisan support.

Founded in 2003, the Congressional Historic Preservation Caucus is one of the largest, long-standing bipartisan Caucuses in Congress. It serves as a bipartisan forum for Members of Congress to discuss and advance policies that protect and revitalize America’s historic places and strengthen communities through preservation – including critical programs such as the Historic Preservation Fund and Federal Historic Tax Credit. The Caucus provides important leadership on Capitol Hill and champions legislation that advances historic preservation throughout the country.

“Historic places are a living record of who we are as a country and help tell our story to future generations,” said Magaziner. “I am honored to serve as Vice Chair of the Historic Preservation Caucus and advocate for the places that have shaped our nation’s history. As a Representative of the historically rich state of Rhode Island, I look forward to bringing our state’s deep commitment to preserving historic places to this role.”

“I’m honored to be named a Vice Chair of the Historic Preservation Caucus alongside my colleague, Rep. Magaziner,” said Rep. Mike Carey. “Thank you to Co-Chairs Mike Turner and Teresa Leger-Fernandez for their leadership and for this opportunity. Historic preservation is a personal passion of mine, and I look forward to working alongside the Caucus and Preservation Action to protect the rich, unique history of Ohio and our nation.”

“Historic places tell the story of who we are. They remind us of the values that shaped our communities and inspire the generations that come next. Said Rep. Leger Fernández Historic preservation is about more than protecting old buildings—it’s about protecting our shared history, strengthening local economies, and honoring the cultures that make America extraordinary. I’m thrilled to welcome Representatives Seth Magaziner and Mike Carey as the first Vice Chairs of the bipartisan Congressional Historic Preservation Caucus. Their leadership reflects what we’ve always known: preserving America’s history is not a partisan issue. Together, we’ll continue working across the aisle to protect the places that define our past and help build a stronger future.” 

The Historic Preservation Caucus works to raise awareness among Members of Congress about the importance of historic preservation and serves as a resource on federal policies and programs that help preserve America’s historic places. The Caucus supports efforts that encourage the rehabilitation and reuse of historic buildings, foster economic development, promote heritage tourism, and protect the nation’s diverse cultural and historic resources.

Posted on

ACHP Proposal Completely Upends Section 106 Reviews- Take Action!

On Friday, July 24th, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) voted to approve a disastrous rewrite of the regulations that implement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Preservation Action is appalled by this vote and stands with our preservation colleagues opposing this devastating move.

While the ACHP announced an interest in revising the Section 106 regulations with the aim of speeding up federal project delivery earlier this year, this proposal goes much further than anticipated and blows past their own established procedures for how they would go about these revisions.

Section 106 of the NHPA is the foundational requirement for federal agencies to take into account a federal project’s impact on historic resources by providing State, Tribal, and local governments and the public with a voice in the process, but does not mandate an outcome. While not always perfect, the Section 106 process has worked effectively and efficiently, leading to better project outcomes.

The proposed Section 106 revisions would have a devasting impact on historic resources across the country. Preservation Action strongly opposes the proposed revisions and continues to work with our partners to organize effectively.

What’s in the Proposal

At the same time as we are celebrating the 60th anniversary of the National Historic Preservation Act, the proposal from the ACHP is the most significant rewrite of Section 106 in its history. The revisions shift authority away from collaborative consultation and toward unilateral agency control, undermining the ability of states, tribes, local communities, and the public to protect their important historic resources. Despite the desire to accelerate the federal review process, the regulations will actually lead to more delays and litigation.

Here’s some of what was in the proposal:

  • Elimination of meaningful consultation with State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. Agencies would prepare a single report— identifying historic properties, evaluating effects, and deciding mitigation (if any) —before circulating for comment, instead of developing it alongside states, Tribes, and other consulting parties.
  • Fewer seats at the table. Local governments would be cut out of the consultation process. The public and preservation organizations would no longer be considered as consulting parties. Public input would become entirely discretionary.
  • Fewer projects reviewed. Broad categories of federally connected work — including projects with minimal federal funding/control and those aligned with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) categorical exclusions — could be exempted from review entirely.
  • Significant cultural landscapes would no longer be considered historic. The proposal redefines what is considered “historic property”. This would exclude certain cultural landscapes, including mountains, valleys, and ethnographic landscapes, reducing protections for Tribal sacred sites and Traditional Cultural Properties. A requirement for historic property to be “geographically compact” could also impact large urban and rural historic districts.
  • No longer required to avoid, minimize, or mitigate harm. In cases of adverse effects, federal agencies can decide that other considerations outweigh historic preservation on a federal project and are not required to avoid or minimize harm. It also limits what is considered an adverse effect to those that are reasonably foreseeable — cutting out longstanding consideration of setting, visual impacts, and indirect effects.

As the historic preservation community knows, Section 106 has never been about stopping projects; it’s about bringing multiple sources of expertise to the table before decisions are final. This proposal moves most of that expertise to the sidelines.

Next Steps

Now that the ACHP has voted to approve the proposed revisions, the proposal was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), where they will review the proposal. Following review, the revisions will be posted in the Federal Register and the public will have the opportunity to submit comments.

You can read more about how we got here and what should come next from our colleagues at the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers here.

What You Can Do

Preservation Action is engaging with members of Congress and working alongside our partners to provide the tools you need to respond effectively. We encourage you to stay active and alert. Here’s what you can do:

1. Begin preparing to submit substantive written comments on the proposed revisions as soon as the rule is published in the Federal Register. Learn more about preparing those comments from Cultural Heritage Partners here.

2. Reach out to your members of Congress to alert them to the ACHP’s proposed revisions and the devastating impact they would have on historic resources in your community.

A bipartisan and bicameral dear colleague letter is currently circulating in the House and Senate opposing the ACHP’s proposed changes to the Section 106 regulations.

Reach out to your members of Congress and urge them express their opposition to the ACHP proposal and sign-on to bipartisan letter TODAY!

If you have a contact in your Representative or Senator’s office, reach out to them directly. If you need assistance reaching congressional staff, contact Preservation Action at rnaylor@preservationaction.org.

3. Submit examples of Section 106 success stories. Do you have stories of times the Section 106 process worked well and benefitted communities? Sharing those experiences can help strengthen our advocacy efforts as work to combat frequent misconceptions.

4. Request meeting with OIRA. Interested parties including nonprofits, businesses, trade associations, and state, local, and tribal governments can request a meeting with OIRA to express their concern over the proposed rule and the devastating impact it will have.

As the review process continues, members of the public are able to request a 30 minute telephone meeting to express their concerns. You can request a meeting here. Enter the ACHP’s proposed rulemaking regulatory information number, “3010-AA10” where it asks for RIN. Follow the prompts and submit the request.

For more information on submitting a meeting request with OIRA, check out the American Cultural Resources Association recent action alert.

5. Help us spread the word! Share this alert and additional resources with your constituencies. Let them know how this proposal impacts historic resources in your community and encourage them to stay engaged in the process.

6. Stay up to date on the latest developments including action alerts, be sure you are signed up for our weekly Legislative Update and follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

Stay tuned for more!

Additional Resources

Responses From Elected Officials

Press Coverage