Advocates say proposed changes to Section 106 may weaken protections for historic places
RBC | A proposed rewrite of the federal rules used to review projects that may affect historic places is raising concerns among preservation groups in Colorado.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation voted July 24 to move forward with changes to the regulations that guide Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider how projects they fund, permit or carry out could affect historic properties. It also gives states, Tribal governments, local communities and members of the public a chance to weigh in before decisions are made.
The process does not automatically stop development or prevent a project from moving forward. It requires agencies to identify historic resources, consider possible impacts and consult with the people and governments most closely connected to those places.
History Colorado’s Board of Directors said the proposed changes would weaken that process by giving federal agencies more authority to make decisions on their own and reducing required consultation with states, Tribes and local governments.
“The proposed revisions undermine the right of Tribes, states, local governments, descendant communities, and the public to have a say in how federal projects impact the places where Americans live,” the board said in a July 23 statement.
Preservation groups are also concerned the proposed rules would narrow the definition of what can be considered historic.
That matters in places like western Colorado, where historic resources may include more than individual buildings. Ranching landscapes, mining districts, trails, archaeological sites, waterways and places with cultural or religious significance may also be part of the region’s history.
Under the draft proposal, critics say some of those broader landscapes and natural features could fall outside the federal review process.
Rio Blanco County has several properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, including the Meeker Historic District, the Meeker Hotel, the IOOF Valentine Lodge and the Coal Creek School.
The Meeker Historic District includes portions of downtown and represents the town’s early development as a center for ranching, business and government in northwestern Colorado.
National Register status does not prevent private property owners from selling, remodeling or changing a property. Section 106 generally comes into play only when a project has a federal connection, including federal funding, permitting, licensing or approval.
That could include transportation, energy, communications, infrastructure or public-land projects.
History Colorado said the current process was designed to include the people closest to historic places because they often know the most about their significance.
“Congress specifically passed the National Historic Preservation Act as a collaboration among federal, state, Tribal governments, and local communities,” the board said.
The proposed rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, and the public comment period has not opened.
The draft will first go through federal interagency review. Once it is published, the public is expected to have 30 days to submit comments.
The final language could change before then.
History Colorado urged the council not to move forward with changes that reduce meaningful consultation with states, Tribes and local communities.
Advocates say proposed changes to Section 106 may threaten historic places like St. James Episcopal Church, pictured above. GRACELYN WALKER PHOTO
NATIONAL HISTORIC PLACES IN RBC:
– Battle of Milk River Site
– Cañon Pintado
– Carrot Men Pictograph Site
– Coal Creek School
– Collage Shelter Site
– Duck Creek Wickiup Village
– Fremont Lookout Fortification Site
– Hay’s Ranch Bridge
– Hotel Meeker
– Meeker Historic District
– Meeker I.O.O.F. Lodge-Valentine Lodge No. 47
– Pyramid Guard Station
– St. James Episcopal Church
FROM THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES DATABASE. NPS.GOV