For more than 60 years, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) has ensured that communities have a voice when federally funded or federally permitted projects threaten historic places. Section 106 does not stop development. It requires thoughtful planning, public participation, and a seat at the table for those who care about protecting our shared heritage.
That process is now under serious threat.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is considering the most sweeping rewrite of the Section 106 regulations since 1986. If adopted, these changes would fundamentally weaken one of the nation’s most important preservation laws. More concerning, the public comment period is expected to last only 30 days for changes that could reshape preservation policy for decades.
At Preservation Buffalo Niagara, we believe these proposed changes are not modernization. They are a dismantling of the public process that has protected historic places across the country for generations.
Why This Matters
The current Section 106 process requires federal agencies to consult with State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), local governments, preservation organizations, and the public before projects move forward.
The proposed regulations would dramatically reduce those checks and balances.
Among the most concerning changes:
- Federal agencies would largely determine for themselves what qualifies as a historic property and whether impacts are significant, replacing meaningful consultation with an agency-authored report.
- Historic landscapes, cultural landscapes, traditional cultural properties, and many natural features could lose protection entirely under a much narrower definition of what is considered “historic.”
- Visual impacts, changes to historic settings, noise, and other contextual effects could no longer be considered adverse impacts unless a project physically damages a resource.
- The long-standing preservation hierarchy of avoiding impacts first, minimizing impacts second, and mitigating impacts only when necessary would effectively disappear. Agencies could simply conclude that other priorities outweigh preservation.
- Public participation would become optional. Perhaps most alarming, preservation nonprofits and community organizations would lose their formal role as consulting parties in the Section 106 process.
- Entire categories of federally funded or federally supported projects could be exempted from review altogether.
What This Means for Buffalo
These are not abstract policy changes. They would have real consequences here in Western New York.
Preservation Buffalo Niagara has participated in countless Section 106 reviews over the years, helping communities navigate projects that affect historic neighborhoods, parks, transportation corridors, and significant buildings. Our role has never been to stop progress. Our role has been to ensure that progress respects history, neighborhoods, and the people who live there.
If these regulations had been in place years ago, our ability, and the ability of organizations like the East Side Parkways Coalition, to advocate during the Route 33 Kensington Expressway project would have been dramatically diminished. Community organizations could simply be left out of the conversation.
The same is true for future projects involving federally funded parks, transportation investments, housing initiatives, and historic resources throughout our region.
Our own rehabilitation of the Eliza Quirk House at 72 Sycamore is receiving support through the National Park Service’s Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization Grant Program. That funding is secure because it has already been awarded. But future preservation projects like ours could face a very different federal landscape if preservation protections continue to erode.
Preservation Is Stronger When Communities Have a Voice.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of these proposed changes is the removal of nonprofit organizations and local advocates from the decision-making process.
Organizations like Preservation Buffalo Niagara exist because communities deserve informed advocates who understand local history, neighborhood character, and the long-term value of preservation. Section 106 has always recognized that preservation decisions should not rest solely with the agency carrying out a project. They should include those who know and care about the places being affected.
Removing consulting party status does more than weaken nonprofits. It weakens communities. It shifts decisions away from collaborative problem-solving and toward unilateral agency determinations. It makes preservation less transparent, less accountable, and less democratic.
Our Position
Preservation Buffalo Niagara strongly opposes these proposed changes.
Historic preservation has always worked best when agencies, communities, tribes, preservation professionals, local governments, and nonprofit organizations work together to find balanced solutions. Section 106 has never been about preventing change. It has been about making better decisions.
Historic preservation has never been about saving buildings for the sake of buildings. It is about giving communities a voice in how change happens.
Eliminating meaningful consultation, narrowing what qualifies as historic, dismissing impacts to historic settings, and sidelining the public does not improve the process. It guts it.
These proposed regulations do not just weaken preservation. They weaken public participation itself.
Our nation’s historic places belong to everyone. The public deserves more than a 30-day opportunity to comment on changes that could fundamentally reshape how we protect them.
We urge preservation advocates, community organizations, elected officials, and citizens across the country to pay close attention as these proposed regulations are released. The future of preservation depends on ensuring that communities continue to have a meaningful seat at the table.
